feat(api): add absolute flow_rate argument to aspirate() and dispense()#18326
Merged
feat(api): add absolute flow_rate argument to aspirate() and dispense()#18326
flow_rate argument to aspirate() and dispense()#18326Conversation
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish.
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish.
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish.
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish.
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish.
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 17, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
…and `dispense()` (#18391) # Overview We added the `flow_rate` argument to `aspirate()` and `dispense()` (AUTH-1627, PR #18326), so now in PD Python generation, we can just set the flow rate directly, instead of the hacky ratio we were emitting before. This makes the generated code much cleaner and easier to read. ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Updated unit tests. Examined generated code by hand. I also re-exported Python for a test protocol and confirmed that it passes `analyze`. ## Risk assessment Low.
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 22, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
ddcc4
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2025
…se() (#18326) # Overview Previously, `aspirate()` and `dispense()` only took a `rate`, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this: ``` pipette.flow_rate.aspirate = 123 ``` but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack: ``` pipette.aspirate(rate=123/pipette.flow_rate.aspirate) ``` which produces the correct value, but is ugly. For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute `flow_rate` argument (in uL/s) to `aspirate()` and `dispense()`. AUTH-1627 ## Test Plan and Hands on Testing Added unit tests for the new argument. I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code. Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both `rate` and `flow_rate`. ## Risk assessment Low-ish. (cherry picked from commit 50e32e2)
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
2 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
Previously,
aspirate()anddispense()only took arate, which is a ratio of the pipette's default flow rate. This made it hard to specify an absolute flow rate for a single aspirate and dispense call, because the default flow rate for the pipette is often unknown. As a workaround, we could override the pipette's default flow rate like this:but that permanently alters the flow rates for the rest of the protocol. For PD code generation, we were using the hack:
which produces the correct value, but is ugly.
For both PD code generation and our human users, this PR adds an absolute
flow_rateargument (in uL/s) toaspirate()anddispense(). AUTH-1627Test Plan and Hands on Testing
Added unit tests for the new argument.
I relied on existing unit tests to make sure behavior is unchanged for existing code.
Added tests to make sure we error if the user specifies both
rateandflow_rate.Risk assessment
Low-ish.