Skip to content

Merge back 'chore_release-8.5.0' into 'chore_release-pd-8.5.0' #18648

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jun 17, 2025

Conversation

ddcc4
Copy link
Collaborator

@ddcc4 ddcc4 commented Jun 16, 2025

This pulls in the new labware images.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 16, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 49 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 23.96%. Comparing base (cb00b3e) to head (5dc6e02).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...s/LabwarePositionCheck/LPCFlows/useLPCAnalytics.ts 0.00% 29 Missing ⚠️
...ibrary/src/components/labware-ui/labware-images.ts 0.00% 13 Missing ⚠️
...s/Desktop/Labware/LabwareDetails/labware-images.ts 0.00% 7 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@                    Coverage Diff                     @@
##           chore_release-pd-8.5.0   #18648      +/-   ##
==========================================================
- Coverage                   25.89%   23.96%   -1.94%     
==========================================================
  Files                        3256     3256              
  Lines                      281309   281367      +58     
  Branches                    28543    28508      -35     
==========================================================
- Hits                        72842    67419    -5423     
- Misses                     208440   213923    +5483     
+ Partials                       27       25       -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
app 0.33% <0.00%> (-2.75%) ⬇️
protocol-designer 19.10% <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
...s/Desktop/Labware/LabwareDetails/labware-images.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ibrary/src/components/labware-ui/labware-images.ts 0.19% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
...s/LabwarePositionCheck/LPCFlows/useLPCAnalytics.ts 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 108 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.

sfoster1 and others added 2 commits June 16, 2025 15:22
Labware labels are passed through from the protocol api all the way to
the commands and eventually the client with little actual
_functionality_ dependent on their types or their values. That means
that the only thing that checks them is pydantic model validation, and
if you avoid that - as the legacy command mapper does by using
model_construct() - then other downstream things won't be happy.

In this case, OT-2 LPC starts its session by echoing commands it reads
from the robot analysis back out to a maintenance run. When a client
uses HTTP to create commands, pydantic model validation _does_ run, and
it would fail, and this wasn't an anticipated error scenario because,
well, it's echoed from the protocol! But the incorrect data made it
through.

Another way to handle this would be to do pydantic model validation on
the protocol inputs, but that would break any old protocols that
implicitly depended on this working. Compatibility! Also IMO it's silly
that we enforce this if the entire system works just fine if you give it
an integer.

Closes RESC-423
@ddcc4 ddcc4 force-pushed the merge-8.5.0-into-pd-8.5.0 branch from cd341b6 to 6d9761b Compare June 16, 2025 22:23
@ddcc4 ddcc4 requested a review from a team as a code owner June 16, 2025 22:23
@ddcc4 ddcc4 force-pushed the merge-8.5.0-into-pd-8.5.0 branch 2 times, most recently from fedb3b1 to b23b9a1 Compare June 16, 2025 22:29
Copy link
Member

@sfoster1 sfoster1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good to me! @smb2268 is out today so if you want to merge it today you'll have to go without their input.

@ddcc4
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ddcc4 commented Jun 17, 2025

Thanks Seth. Lol, I wanted to get this in before someone changed chore_release-pd-8.5.0, but there have been more changes to the destination branch, so I'm going to have to re-resolve the merge conflicts again.

@ddcc4 ddcc4 force-pushed the merge-8.5.0-into-pd-8.5.0 branch from b23b9a1 to 5dc6e02 Compare June 17, 2025 18:35
@ddcc4 ddcc4 merged commit 5dc6e02 into chore_release-pd-8.5.0 Jun 17, 2025
67 of 68 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants