Chore: incremental mergeback of 8.4.0 into edge#18189
Merged
Conversation
none of the other ones are prefixed like this
…for nozzles/well (#18167)
<!-- Thanks for taking the time to open a Pull Request (PR)! Please make sure you've read the "Opening Pull Requests" section of our Contributing Guide: https://github.com/Opentrons/opentrons/blob/edge/CONTRIBUTING.md#opening-pull-requests GitHub provides robust markdown to format your PR. Links, diagrams, pictures, and videos along with text formatting make it possible to create a rich and informative PR. For more information on GitHub markdown, see: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax To ensure your code is reviewed quickly and thoroughly, please fill out the sections below to the best of your ability! --> # Overview This turns the previous measure liquid height implementation that didn't allow for recovery into a recoverable one. This is done by just doing the "require_liquid_presnece" call and then using the new well state endpoint to return the height instead of getting it directly from the engine. <!-- Describe your PR at a high level. State acceptance criteria and how this PR fits into other work. Link issues, PRs, and other relevant resources. --> ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing <!-- Describe your testing of the PR. Emphasize testing not reflected in the code. Attach protocols, logs, screenshots and any other assets that support your testing. --> ## Changelog <!-- List changes introduced by this PR considering future developers and the end user. Give careful thought and clear documentation to breaking changes. --> ## Review requests <!-- - What do you need from reviewers to feel confident this PR is ready to merge? - Ask questions. --> ## Risk assessment Since this is just using the same calls as the other api endpoints there is no additional testing to be done, and since it would just fail protocols before and now it is perhaps recoverable then this can only be a good thing. <!-- - Indicate the level of attention this PR needs. - Provide context to guide reviewers. - Discuss trade-offs, coupling, and side effects. - Look for the possibility, even if you think it's small, that your change may affect some other part of the system. - For instance, changing return tip behavior may also change the behavior of labware calibration. - How do your unit tests and on hands on testing mitigate this PR's risks and the risk of future regressions? - Especially in high risk PRs, explain how you know your testing is enough. -->
We weren't deserializing the simulation standin properly, which broke runlog downloading. Now we are. Also, we shouldn't be dumping it to the runlog anymore. That was happening because of pydantic/pydantic#6830 which causes mis-serialization of fields typed as `Model | NativeType`, where `NativeType` is some scalar python type (i.e. float, int) and `Model` is some pydantic model. With the model first, serializing the container will always result in the serialization of the default construction of the model, even if the attribute actually contained the native type. Flipping the order makes it work correctly, for some reason. Luckily this is consistent enough to be testable. Closes RQA-4147 Closes EXEC-1429 Closes EXEC-1358
<img width="822" alt="Screenshot 2025-04-25 at 4 05 35 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/852cd914-c53b-4a18-98c0-149872aff7fa" /> Closes RQA-4148
…et (#18185) <!-- Thanks for taking the time to open a Pull Request (PR)! Please make sure you've read the "Opening Pull Requests" section of our Contributing Guide: https://github.com/Opentrons/opentrons/blob/edge/CONTRIBUTING.md#opening-pull-requests GitHub provides robust markdown to format your PR. Links, diagrams, pictures, and videos along with text formatting make it possible to create a rich and informative PR. For more information on GitHub markdown, see: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax To ensure your code is reviewed quickly and thoroughly, please fill out the sections below to the best of your ability! --> # Overview Due to the way that the movement logic of blow out is handled, it expects an absolute point. So when a location is a meniscus relative type, then it miscalculates the "delta" of the point. The delta it computes is -1 * the absolute point of the well.top. To correct this if the location passed into blowout is a meniscus relative location, we take the offset from that and apply it to the current well height instead. this gives us the correct absolute point. The other option would have been to hook up all the layers to handle LiquidHandlingWellLocation types in addition to WellLocation but that has its own headaches since its not actually liquid handling, and there is no operational volume. <!-- Describe your PR at a high level. State acceptance criteria and how this PR fits into other work. Link issues, PRs, and other relevant resources. --> ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing <!-- Describe your testing of the PR. Emphasize testing not reflected in the code. Attach protocols, logs, screenshots and any other assets that support your testing. --> ## Changelog <!-- List changes introduced by this PR considering future developers and the end user. Give careful thought and clear documentation to breaking changes. --> ## Review requests <!-- - What do you need from reviewers to feel confident this PR is ready to merge? - Ask questions. --> ## Risk assessment Using blowout with a meniscus relative location without a liquid-probe or load liquid will now fail analysis. there is no interaction with a "minimum liquid height" so there is no worries there. even with a liquid height of 0 <!-- - Indicate the level of attention this PR needs. - Provide context to guide reviewers. - Discuss trade-offs, coupling, and side effects. - Look for the possibility, even if you think it's small, that your change may affect some other part of the system. - For instance, changing return tip behavior may also change the behavior of labware calibration. - How do your unit tests and on hands on testing mitigate this PR's risks and the risk of future regressions? - Especially in high risk PRs, explain how you know your testing is enough. -->
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## edge #18189 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 24.97% 26.52% +1.55%
==========================================
Files 3026 3193 +167
Lines 235132 266848 +31716
Branches 20163 24554 +4391
==========================================
+ Hits 58715 70787 +12072
- Misses 176403 196032 +19629
- Partials 14 29 +15
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
sfoster1
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
Fix a couple lint failures in edge in API (~merge conflict from #18189~ fixed in another pr ), hardware testing (introducing schema 3 again - may be old), and engine (bad decoy)
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
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 19, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 22, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
ddcc4
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
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
6 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.
Incremental mergeback of 8.4.0 into edge, on April 28th
In particular, I need the
displayNamechange from the labware definition in shared-data to be in edge for the labware-library release.