feat: tscope tga pcr indel model conservative

[mathiasbio]

Description

This PR attempts to solve the issue of increased number of variants in the TGA workflow after merging with VarDict with TNscope in release 16.0.0. As described in this issue: https://github.com/Clinical-Genomics/MTP-BALSAMIC/issues/3 and discussed here: #1514

Two suggestions have been made to reduce the number of variants.

Added

• [Description]

Changed

• [Description]

Fixed

• [Description]

Removed

• [Description]

Documentation

• N/A
• Updated Balsamic documentation to reflect the changes as needed for this PR.
  • [Document Name]

Tests

Feature Tests

• N/A
• Test [Description]
  • [Screenshot]

Pipeline Integrity Tests

• Report deliver (generation of the .hk file)
  • N/A
  • Verified
• TGA T/O Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified
• TGA T/N Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified
• UMI T/O Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified
• UMI T/N Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified
• WGS T/O Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified
• WGS T/N Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified
• QC Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified
• PON Workflow
  • N/A
  • Verified

Clinical Genomics Stockholm

Documentation

• Atlas documentation
  • N/A
  • Updated: [Link]
• Web portal for Clinical Genomics
  • N/A
  • Updated: [Link]

Panel of Normal specific criteria

• The PR includes the addition of a new Panel of Normals
• The samples have been verified to adhere to the sample selection criteria on Atlas PoN creation instructions for Balsamic

User Changes

• N/A
• This PR affects the output files or results.
  • User feedback is considered unnecessary because [Justification].
  • Affected users have been included in the development process and given a chance to provide feedback.

Infrastructure Changes

• Stored files in Housekeeper
  • N/A
  • Updated: [Link]
• CG (CLI and delivered/uploaded files)
  • N/A
  • Updated: [Link]
• Servers (configuration files on Hasta)
  • N/A
  • Updated: [Link]
• Scout interface
  • N/A
  • Updated: [Link]

Validation criteria

Validation criteria to be added to validation report PR: [LINK-TO-VALIDATION-REPORT-PR from the validations repository]

Version specific criteria

• Text here or N/A

Important

One of the below checkboxes for validation need to be checked

• Added version specific validation criteria to validation report
• Changes validated in standard sections: [validation-section]
• Validation criteria not necessary

Checklist

Important

Ensure that all checkboxes below are ticked before merging.

For Developers

• PR Description
  • Provided a comprehensive description of the PR.
  • Linked relevant user stories or issues to the PR.
• Documentation
  • Verified and updated documentation if necessary.
• Validation criteria
  • Completed the validation criteria section of the template.
• Tests
  • Described and tested the functionality addressed in the PR.
  • Ensured integration of the new code with existing workflows.
  • Confirmed that meaningful unit tests were added for the changes introduced.
  • Checked that the PR has successfully passed all relevant code smells and coverage checks.
• Review
  • Addressed and resolved all the feedback provided during the code review process.
  • Obtained final approval from designated reviewers.

For Reviewers

• Code
  • Code implements the intended features or fixes the reported issue.
  • Code follows the project's coding standards and style guide.
• Documentation
  • Pipeline changes are well-documented in the CHANGELOG and relevant documentation.
• Validation criteria
  • The author has completed the validation criteria section of the template
• Tests
  • The author provided a description of their manual testing, including consideration of edge cases and boundary
    conditions where applicable, with satisfactory results.
• Review
  • Confirmed that the developer has addressed all the comments during the code review.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.45%. Comparing base (7d529e6) to head (a87ece4).
Report is 50 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1526      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    99.48%   99.45%   -0.03%     
===========================================
  Files           40       40              
  Lines         1932     2021      +89     
===========================================
+ Hits          1922     2010      +88     
- Misses          10       11       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	99.45% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud