Skip to content
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

fix(shared-data): Pre-sort innerLabwareGeometry sections #17426

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 5, 2025

Conversation

SyntaxColoring
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

This addresses one of the labware definition problems identified in #17425, now that the labware definitions are actually being tested.

One of those tests makes sure that the different parts of the labware definition agree on where the tops of the wells are. The implementation of that test relies on an assumption that a well's geometry sections are defined in order from physical top to physical bottom. That assumption does not hold for most of these definitions, so the test has a lot of spurious failures, now that it's actually running.

There are two ways to resolve this:

  1. Edit the labware schema and the labware definitions so the ordering assumption does hold.
  2. Rewrite the test to do its own sorting. It sounds like we already do this in the robot backend.

After discussion with @caila-marashaj, we're going with option 1.

Changelog

  • Update the property description to mention this new ordering requirement.
  • Update all labware definitions to conform to this new ordering requirement. You know I love my one-off scripts.
  • Add a test to explicitly check the ordering.

Test Plan and Hands on Testing

  • Uncomment the checkGeometryDefinitions test that was commented out in #17425. Make sure it has fewer failures now.
    • It still has some failures, for unrelated reasons, so we can't totally uncomment it just yet. See the // FIXME comment in checkGeometryDefinitions in #17425.

Review requests

Glance through the labware definition changes and make sure nothing unexpected snuck into the diff.

Risk assessment

Low.

@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring requested review from a team as code owners February 5, 2025 00:34
@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring requested review from smb2268 and removed request for a team February 5, 2025 00:34
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 5, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 25.53%. Comparing base (643cf15) to head (b94252f).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #17426      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   18.16%   25.53%   +7.37%     
==========================================
  Files        3171     3171              
  Lines      229418   229440      +22     
  Branches     6883     8743    +1860     
==========================================
+ Hits        41665    58598   +16933     
+ Misses     187753   170812   -16941     
- Partials        0       30      +30     
Flag Coverage Δ
app 3.21% <ø> (?)
labware-library 3.96% <ø> (?)
opentrons-ai-client 4.83% <ø> (?)
protocol-designer 17.34% <ø> (ø)
step-generation 3.80% <ø> (?)

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...pentrons_shared_data/labware/labware_definition.py 78.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 346 files with indirect coverage changes

Copy link
Contributor

@caila-marashaj caila-marashaj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome. Thanks so much for this.

@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring merged commit d3e189d into edge Feb 5, 2025
78 checks passed
@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring deleted the sort_innerlabwaregeometry_sections branch February 5, 2025 15:32
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.

2 participants