fix(api): fix aspirate/dispense while tracking move to#17854
Merged
caila-marashaj merged 6 commits intoedgefrom Apr 15, 2025
Merged
fix(api): fix aspirate/dispense while tracking move to#17854caila-marashaj merged 6 commits intoedgefrom
caila-marashaj merged 6 commits intoedgefrom
Conversation
caila-marashaj
force-pushed
the
fix-aspirate-while-tracking-move-to
branch
from
f1a321c to
d260313
Compare
ryanthecoder
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 0ca313c3453a2f7e78cd88c38ccd00c35e5838cb)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 0ca313c3453a2f7e78cd88c38ccd00c35e5838cb)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 0ca313c3453a2f7e78cd88c38ccd00c35e5838cb)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 22, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
(cherry picked from commit 5b94322)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 30, 2025
…" in chore_release-8.5.0 (#18472) This reverts commit d06a5f3. # Overview In PR #17854, @caila-marashaj deleted the `operation_volume` parameter from the call to `move_to_well()` in `aspirate_while_tracking.py`, asserting that "It was previously called with the `operation_volume` parameter. This is wrong because we need z tracking to start from where the meniscus currently is, not where it's going to be." That PR was checked into `edge`. I picked that PR into `chore_release-8.5.0`. But Caila's change somehow disappeared from `edge` entirely. The code in `edge` now **does** have the `move_to_well(operation_volume=-params.volume)` parameter. @ryanthecoder thinks Caila's change was probably deleted from `edge` by one of the mergebacks from `chore_release-8.4.0` into `edge`. Ryan says that we **do** want `move_to_well(operation_volume=-params.volume)`. So now I have to revert Caila's change in `chore_release-8.5.0`. ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing I'm taking Ryan's word for it that `move_to_well(operation_volume=-params.volume)` is correct :) But let's run the CI tests to see if everything passes. ## Risk assessment Low I hope. Ryan says that the version **with** `move_to_well(operation_volume=-params.volume)` is what we've tested and released, so we should use that.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Overview
In the protocol engine, before aspirating or dispensing while tracking, we call
move_to_wellto get to theMeniscuswell location before we start z tracking. There's been a couple of errors in how that's called:operation_volumeparameter. This is wrong because we need z tracking to start from where the meniscus currently is, not where it's going to becurrent_well. This would cause some pretty gnarly collisions if the aspirate/dispense while tracking commands were called starting from inside a tiprack, for example.Additionally, the
test_aspirate_while_trackingandtest_dispense_while_trackingfiles just need a couple of theirdecoycalls updated to reflect the code changes.