chore(mono): Merge chore_release-8.4.0-alpha.8 into edge
#18222
Merged
Conversation
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
Closes RQA-4156 When LPCing a labware in a module slot, the "Prepare deck for LPC" view's deck map currently renders the actively LPC'd labware above all modules and not just the module of interest. To fix, we only render the LPC'd labware above the module with an id that matches the location-specific module id.
We altered modules to not be eventually loaded on deck slots on the
Flex, so we could better support the stacker providing two addressable
areas per module. This had an unexpected knock-on effect of making
get_ancestor_slot() not a good fallback if we ran out of depth to check
in get_labware_grip_point(), and protocols that called that
function (e.g. by calling move_labware) on a location that consisted of
a stack of more than one labware on a module (so, moving something on to
or off of a labware on an adapter on a module) would give you a deck
configuration conflict, since get_ancestor_slot would request a slot but
the module is there instead.
There is a larger fix for this - geometry needs to be more broadly
overhauled to work on location sequences throughout - but for now we can
make duals of the recursive pointer-chasing symbolic geometry resolvers
that work based on the "everything ends up on an addressable area"
assumption.
Particularly notable is modules - there was some very weird stuff in
here to make code that was intended for the OT-2 and geometry from the
module defs continue to work on Flex and geometry that is based on the
deck def addressable area coordinates, which was causing a lot of
complexity in get_labware_grip_point(). By changing the module
get_nominal_position() (or really making a new one) that returns the
offset of a child labware _from the nearest addressable area_ (i.e.
0-vec on the flex) instead of from the underlying deck slot, we can
eliminate a whole lot of logic.
Also, we can eliminate a call to one of these altered and possibly
problematic
functions in the gripper tip error checking by just poking through and
doing the
underlying math. I thought this was going to be more necessary when I
was
looking at this first, because I thought I was going to change
`get_labware_grip_point()`
more than I ended up doing, but I still think it's a good idea to not
call it there.
## review requests
- does this seem safe and adequately covered for regression?
## testing
- [ ] set up a protocol that loads a labware on a labware on a module,
and try and
gripper move something to and from it. this needs a fake labware that
allows
stacking.
Closes RQA-4153
---------
Co-authored-by: Max Marrone <max@opentrons.com>
Avoid some previous uncommanded raises in Z while executing resin tip commands. These were caused by some unnecessarily high motions and because the seal command didn't set the pipette locations tate update, so the subsequent motions would run as-if moving between labware, raising the z stage up to clear labware in between. There was also an issue that required a slight refactor in `drop_tip`. Our drop-tip functionality tries to position the pipette such that the tip is somewhat inside the target well. This is based on multipliers that are specific to the pipette and the tips, since we don't support custom tips - we get to tune them in for ours. Well, these aren't our tips, and to the system they're not really tips at all: we forbid using tips as labware, and that's what resin tips are, so they can't be tips. This added up to making the drop-tip (or, unseal in this case) functionality drop the tips from way above the labware and they'd go everywhere. By overriding the function that provides the default drop tip location, we can make this all work properly, and since we don't override it in any other circumstances, we won't break the non-resin-tip drop. ## review - good enough? ## testing - [x] on 8 channel and 96 channel make sure that a straightforward seal-dispense-unseal routine doesn't move high above the labware Closes EXEC-1467
mjhuff
changed the title
chore_release8.4.0-alpha.8 into edge
mjhuff
changed the title
chore_release8.4.0-alpha.8 into edgechore_release-8.4.0-alpha.8 into edge
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## edge #18222 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 57.49% 57.48% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 3043 3043
Lines 255239 255276 +37
Branches 30503 30516 +13
==========================================
+ Hits 146742 146751 +9
- Misses 108311 108338 +27
- Partials 186 187 +1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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
Incremental mergeback into edge on the alpha.8 cut.
Most of these conflicts were ER related. The rest were straightforward.
Conflicts in the following:
Review requests
If explictly tagged as a reviewer, a quick once-over would be nice!