-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 606
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feature/picard crosscheck fingerprints #1327
Feature/picard crosscheck fingerprints #1327
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any chance you can screenshot what this looks like with MultiQC/test-data#172?
Do note that the "Expected" algorithm doesn't actually know if samples are from the same individual, and so LOD is "expected" to be positive is the sample ID is the same (from VCF or bam header) or if tool was run with "EXPECT_ALL_GROUPS_TO_MATCH=true". I've been toying with the idea of having a concept of "Individual", but that's not for here to discuss.... |
@sstadick I see that the |
@nh13 I don't think so. The input data for the table must come as a dictionary with the sample names as the key, so you can't have multiple rows with the same sample name. Also of note, if someone were to run CrosscheckFingerprints and use ReadGroups as the level of granularity of the checking, I expand the names out to My overall feeling is that |
Co-authored-by: Nils Homer <nh13@users.noreply.github.com>
This makes `Sample Name` in the table just be an index and moves the sample names into the {LEFT,RIGHT}_SAMPLE column. Additionally, this adds support for respecting the sample ignores options, as well as renaming the samples based on the renaming rules.
Thanks all! Test data merged, will take a look at the PR ASAP. I think that there was only one sample in the test data PR? If you fancy adding a few more then that makes testing a bit easier as I can see how a typical report would look.. (But not critical). Phil |
@ewels I think this is ready to go. The only issue I see is that when the sample names are long, the columns will overlap, but I am assuming this is an issue for all tables? If the columns were fit better, or re-sizeable, I think that would help. |
Hi @ewels, We're looking forward to using this module, can this be merged? Thanks |
Hi all, Thanks for this! I've gone over the code and done a fair bit of refactoring, so please check that it still works as you expect. I actually found a nasty little bug in the table code during this (maybe the reason why you disabled the colour schemes for Along with a few other fixes and tweaks, I think that it looks even better now: Note that the zero-point for this new feature is hardcoded to I'll merge this now but please give it a try and shout if I messed anything up 👍🏻 Phil |
This add support for picard CrosscheckFingerprints output. A column is added to General Stats for each sample that indicates True/False (colored Green/Red respectively) as to whether or not all comparisons for that sample return Expected relationships.
There is also a CrosscheckFingerprints table that includes the pairwise comparison, the categorical result, the LOD_SCORE, and the threshold used, to be referenced in the event that a
False
is observed in the General Statistics.--lint
flag)docs/README.md
is updated with link to belowdocs/modulename.md
is createdself.add_section
)For test data see MultiQC/test-data#172