-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 187
refactor(step-generation, shared-data): use set_stored_labware_items and fill_items #20293
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
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## edge #20293 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 25.65% 57.16% +31.51%
===========================================
Files 3643 3647 +4
Lines 303288 304272 +984
Branches 42328 42850 +522
===========================================
+ Hits 77807 173937 +96130
+ Misses 225457 130119 -95338
- Partials 24 216 +192
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
TamarZanzouri
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good! had a few questions but this is good to merge once we get those questions answered :-)
| version=1, | ||
| count=1)`.trimStart() | ||
| flex_stacker_1 = protocol.set_stored_labware_list( | ||
| labware=[well_plate_4], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Out of curiosity: Is the PD UI not going to ask the user for a string so that the user has something to look at when the ODD prompts them to fill the hopper? (The message arg to fill_items().)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ooooh this is an option, yes. i'll add the message arg
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| python: 'wellPlate_1 = mock_flex_stacker_1.retrieve()', | ||
| python: 'mock_flex_stacker_1.retrieve()', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
|
|
||
| export const PAPI_VERSION = '2.27' // latest version from api/src/opentrons/protocols/api_support/definitions.py from the RS release branch | ||
| export const PD_APPLICATION_VERSION = '8.7.0' // latest PD version to insert into DESIGNER_APPLICATION blob | ||
| export const PAPI_VERSION = '2.28' // latest version from api/src/opentrons/protocols/api_support/definitions.py from the RS release branch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Again, we should really change this to the oldest API version that supports all the code that PD generates.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good point, i thought i needed to update it for the _items() but i can revert it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So for this particular PD release, let's bump it up to API 2.28, because @jbleon95 added a new feature to make LC transfers more efficient that's enabled in 2.28.
But I meant that we should update the comment to say pick the oldest API version that has the features we need, rather than the latest API version.
ncdiehl11
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looking good. looking forward to smoke testing soon
protocol-designer/src/steplist/formLevel/stepFormToArgs/flexStackerFormToArgs.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
step-generation/src/commandCreators/atomic/flexStackerFillItems.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nice
| }, | ||
| ], | ||
| python: `${labwarePythonName} = ${modulePythonName}.retrieve()`, | ||
| python: `${modulePythonName}.retrieve()`, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wait we decided we don't need this since the labware already has a python name associated right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
correct! there is a load labware command assosciated with it so we already know the python name 😄
closes EXEC-2102
Overview
Emit
fill_items()andset_stored_labware_items()instead offill()andset_stored_labware(). you can't smoke test this yet thoughAlso i reverted
retrieve()back to before lol.This change came from the meeting today:
Example code we should get from this:
Test Plan and Hands on Testing
review the code. i didn't wire up
fill_items()state update - i'll do that later on when we have things more wired up.you can actually test emitting
set_stored_labware_items()though!Changelog
add the missing types
refactor fill and set stored labware utils
add test cases
Risk assessment
low