feat(app): Show labware versions in LPC

[mjhuff]

Closes EXEC-1592

Overview

Sometimes, when users start protocol setup, it appears as if labware that had offsets in the past now have missing offsets. In actuality, the protocol run utilizes a different version of labware than was previously set in LPC, and offsets are tied to labware versions.

After discussion with Product and Design, we've decided to surface labware versions, which provide some level of visual indication that helps point users to a reason why labware offsets that were present in a past run are now missing.

Protocol Setup

LPC Labware List

Test Plan and Hands on Testing

• See pictures

Changelog

• Added version copy to labware URIs in LPC.

Risk assessment

none, just copy

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 53 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 25.41%. Comparing base (3c88711) to head (393f9b9).
Report is 8 commits behind head on edge.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...sitionCheck/steps/HandleLabware/LPCLabwareList.tsx	0.00%	29 Missing ⚠️
.../organisms/LabwareOffsetsTable/AccordionHeader.tsx	0.00%	19 Missing ⚠️
...s/useLPCLabwareInfo/getLPCLabwareInfoFrom/index.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...bwarePositionCheck/__fixtures__/mockLabwareInfo.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
app/src/organisms/LabwareOffsetsTable/index.tsx	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #18870      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   24.34%   25.41%   +1.06%     
==========================================
  Files        3312     3333      +21     
  Lines      289304   291502    +2198     
  Branches    30805    30839      +34     
==========================================
+ Hits        70432    74085    +3653     
+ Misses     218851   217390    -1461     
- Partials       21       27       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
app	3.10% <0.00%> (+2.11%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
app/src/redux/protocol-runs/types/lpc/labware.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
app/src/organisms/LabwareOffsetsTable/index.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...s/useLPCLabwareInfo/getLPCLabwareInfoFrom/index.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...bwarePositionCheck/__fixtures__/mockLabwareInfo.ts	1.08% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
.../organisms/LabwareOffsetsTable/AccordionHeader.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...sitionCheck/steps/HandleLabware/LPCLabwareList.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 126 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]

Thanks!

[SyntaxColoring]

Groovy!

[SyntaxColoring]

Not just here, but in general in the places where we use truncateString(), why would we truncate to a hard-coded length instead of using CSS text-overflow: ellipsis? Won't this cause problems with letter size variability? Or even just general maintainability as things in the designs get resized over time?

[mjhuff]

Yes, it does have problems with letter size variability, which requires erring on the side of caution. I can't speak to all our usages in the app, but I generally use it in spots where designs don't sufficiently indicate how child content ought to be partitioned in a parent container (ex, the labware naming bounding box vs version bounding box).