fix(components): Fix module positioning in more deck maps

[SyntaxColoring]

Overview

Exactly the same thing as #18871 / EXEC-1645, just in different places.

Test Plan and Hands on Testing

• Checked the protocol details page to make sure its deck map has the Thermocycler positioned correctly now.

  

• Audited all uses of <Module> to see if there are any other places I missed. Found one in protocol-designer, see comments.

Review requests

See comments.

Risk assessment

Medium. Fixing the positioning of <Module> means it's possible that things that were previously aligned to the incorrect positioning of <Module> will now be misaligned and look wrong.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 56.51%. Comparing base (9964abd) to head (784125e).
Report is 5 commits behind head on edge.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
components/src/hardware-sim/BaseDeck/BaseDeck.tsx	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #18874       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   23.82%   56.51%   +32.69%     
===========================================
  Files        3329     3329               
  Lines      287227   287340      +113     
  Branches    35927    36607      +680     
===========================================
+ Hits        68420   162404    +93984     
+ Misses     218781   124730    -94051     
- Partials       26      206      +180     

Flag	Coverage Δ
app	47.42% <57.14%> (+47.09%)	⬆️
protocol-designer	19.02% <57.14%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
step-generation	5.32% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
components/src/hardware-sim/Module/index.tsx	86.06% <100.00%> (+21.35%)	⬆️
...ner/src/pages/Designer/DeckSetup/SelectedItems.tsx	98.30% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
components/src/hardware-sim/BaseDeck/BaseDeck.tsx	54.37% <50.00%> (+52.22%)	⬆️

... and 1759 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[SyntaxColoring]

@jerader Heads up for this.

I tried to fix this here, but fixing the positioning of <Module> leaves the <ModuleLabel> behind so then the <ModuleLabel> looks misaligned, and it wasn't immediately clear how that could be solved. We could pass targetSlotId and targetDeckId to <ModuleLabel> too, and have <ModuleLabel> duplicate <Module>'s math for applying slot-specific transforms, I guess? Kind of a bummer.

In other contexts, I've been exploring extracting the positioning transform logic into separate components. If we did that here, we could have something like:

<AlignModuleToSlot deckDef=... moduleDef=... slotId=...>
  <Module moduleDef=... /* no slotId or deckId needed */ />
  <ModuleLabel ... /* no slotId or deckId needed */ />
</AlignModuleToSlot>

But that was a bit much for me to attempt right here and now.

[mjhuff]

Looks good, one comment to consider.

[mjhuff]

Perfect, thanks