From 50e1706ef935a8eafe509b06a3f23db0fd62cc93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Max Marrone Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 16:33:35 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Update todo comment to be more specific. --- api/src/opentrons/protocol_engine/protocol_engine.py | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/api/src/opentrons/protocol_engine/protocol_engine.py b/api/src/opentrons/protocol_engine/protocol_engine.py index 980d01380b3..bd995f4339a 100644 --- a/api/src/opentrons/protocol_engine/protocol_engine.py +++ b/api/src/opentrons/protocol_engine/protocol_engine.py @@ -304,8 +304,9 @@ def estop( running_or_next_queued_id = ( self._state_store.commands.get_running_command_id() or self._state_store.commands.get_queue_ids().head(None) - # TODO(mm, 2024-04-02): Is it possible for the next queued command to - # be a setup command? That wouldn't show up in commands.get_queue_ids(). + # TODO(mm, 2024-04-02): This logic looks wrong whenever the next queued + # command is a setup command, which is the normal case in maintenance + # runs. Setup commands won't show up in commands.get_queue_ids(). ) running_or_next_queued = ( self._state_store.commands.get(running_or_next_queued_id)