More Thorough Strandness Checking

[evelyn-schmidt]

In one case we got an unexpected strandedness result from the tool (unstranded when we expected stranded)

Upon looking at the actual strandedness files we see this:

From an older run:

This is PairEnd Data
Fraction of reads failed to determine: 0.1421
Fraction of reads explained by "1++,1--,2+-,2-+": 0.0093
Fraction of reads explained by "1+-,1-+,2++,2--": 0.8486
Over 75% of reads explained by "1+-,1-+,2++,2--"
Data is likely RF/fr-firststrand

From a newer run:

This is PairEnd Data
Fraction of reads failed to determine: 0.2900
Fraction of reads explained by "1++,1--,2+-,2-+": 0.0064
Fraction of reads explained by "1+-,1-+,2++,2--": 0.7036
Less than 75% of reads explained by either category
Data is likely unstranded

So maybe in the qc report, if there is an unmatched results these metrics should also be outputted to more reveal the problem?