feat: chanjo2 activation

[mathiasbio]

Description

I just want to try to activate chanjo2 via Scout which is a feature that has been mentioned a few times before.

• Here in relation to the sex check: [User Story] Use predicted sex in analysis when unknown sex #1580
• Here originally: d4 file generation (for chanjo2 primarily) #1484

Link to Scout-stage case with chanjo2 activated here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dmHpKXRauMYiJNcI97D-ybBIcBjn3g5eqWX8ubUZMVA/edit?gid=0#gid=0
Related CG PR: Clinical-Genomics/cg#4522
Related Hermes PR: Clinical-Genomics/hermes#142

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

❌ Patch coverage is 99.34641% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 99.20%. Comparing base (7d529e6) to head (979d0d6).
⚠️ Report is 160 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
BALSAMIC/commands/run/analysis.py	97.72%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1592      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    99.48%   99.20%   -0.28%     
===========================================
  Files           40       40              
  Lines         1932     1896      -36     
===========================================
- Hits          1922     1881      -41     
- Misses          10       15       +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	99.20% <99.34%> (-0.28%)	⬇️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
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