Skip to content
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

Differential header stringency depending on file format #52

Open
ernfrid opened this issue Nov 14, 2018 · 4 comments
Open

Differential header stringency depending on file format #52

ernfrid opened this issue Nov 14, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@ernfrid
Copy link

ernfrid commented Nov 14, 2018

I noticed this in I'm observing differential error checking depending on whether or not the input file is a CRAM or a BAM. The files in question have multiple sample names listed (a different one for each @rg line). When the input is a CRAM, no error is thrown. When the input is a BAM, I see: panic: bam reagroup: more than one RG for /build/test.bam

At the moment, it seems as if indexcov doesn't check CRAM headers? i.e. https://github.com/brentp/goleft/blob/master/indexcov/indexcov.go#L202-L231

I assume this error is thrown because the assumption is that there is a single sample for the whole file and there isn't handling of multiple samples. What is being reported when these problem CRAMs are provided? Stats for all the samples pooled together?

@ernfrid ernfrid changed the title Different header stringency Differential header stringency depending on file format Nov 14, 2018
@ernfrid
Copy link
Author

ernfrid commented Nov 14, 2018

For context, I'm seeing this error when running Smoove.

@brentp
Copy link
Owner

brentp commented Nov 14, 2018

yes, for CRAM it will report the sum of all samples. it should be checked in CRAM too.
the index can't know about the different samples.

@brentp
Copy link
Owner

brentp commented Nov 14, 2018

smoove won't work with multiple samples per bam (I don't think lumpy will either).

@ernfrid
Copy link
Author

ernfrid commented Nov 14, 2018

Yeah, that's what I'd expect. They're not actually multiple samples though...just mislabeled single samples. If by happy circumstance it was all erroneously analyzed as a single sample, then that may not be the worst thing...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants