-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
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
bugfix: ReviewConsensusVariants should not require grouped raw reads to #860
Conversation
overlap each variant. In some cases, the consensus call may change the span of the alignment to cover a base that's not covered by any grouped raw read used in that consensus.
I used the test case found in #604 . The below shows the error with some more debug information, where it's reviewing a variant position of 1101 , where there's are no raw grouped R2 reads covering that position, where the code expects some, since it did fined consensus R2 reads covering that position. This is due to differences in alignment between grouped and consensus reads. The fix is to just return a zero count for the raw grouped reads.
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #860 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 95.64% 95.64%
=======================================
Files 125 125
Lines 7238 7238
Branches 480 479 -1
=======================================
Hits 6923 6923
Misses 315 315
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
overlap each variant.
In some cases, the consensus call may change the span of the alignment
to cover a base that's not covered by any grouped raw read used in that
consensus.
Fixed #604