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

feat(hardware-testing): liquid sense testing script #14807

Merged
merged 54 commits into from
Apr 9, 2024

Conversation

ryanthecoder
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

This PR adds a new testing script that allows us to test all kinds of variations of the liquid-sense routine
it adds some additional features in the hardware control layer to change up output options to during the probe so we can gate using the buffer-on-pipette feature to a firmware version flag, since that feature has to be compiled in separately

Test Plan

Changelog

Review requests

Risk assessment

@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder requested review from a team as code owners April 4, 2024 19:30
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 4, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 60.10%. Comparing base (65885b2) to head (a342186).
Report is 29 commits behind head on edge.

❗ Current head a342186 differs from pull request most recent head efa16f4. Consider uploading reports for the commit efa16f4 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #14807      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.24%   60.10%   -7.15%     
==========================================
  Files        2495      189    -2306     
  Lines       71254    10459   -60795     
  Branches     8937        0    -8937     
==========================================
- Hits        47918     6286   -41632     
+ Misses      21235     4173   -17062     
+ Partials     2101        0    -2101     
Flag Coverage Δ
api ?
app ?
components ?
g-code-testing 92.43% <ø> (ø)
hardware 55.57% <100.00%> (ø)
hardware-testing ?
labware-library ?
notify-server ?
ot3-gravimetric-test ?
protocol-designer ?
react-api-client ?
robot-server ?
shared-data ?
step-generation ?
system-server ?
update-server ?
usb-bridge ?

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

Files Coverage Δ
...ns_hardware/firmware_bindings/messages/messages.py 91.66% <ø> (ø)
...pentrons_hardware/hardware_control/tool_sensors.py 76.85% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2306 files with indirect coverage changes

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.

Looks good but let's make the hwcontrol change a little more prominently documented

@@ -2584,7 +2584,6 @@ async def liquid_probe(
probe=probe if probe else InstrumentProbeType.PRIMARY,
)
end_pos = await self.gantry_position(mount, refresh=True)
await self.move_to(mount, probe_start_pos)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

let's note this change a little more prominently in the pr description or better yet make it a separate pr please

@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder merged commit 2cff9d2 into edge Apr 9, 2024
16 checks passed
Carlos-fernandez pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 20, 2024
<!--
Thanks for taking the time to open a pull request! Please make sure
you've read the "Opening Pull Requests" section of our Contributing
Guide:


https://github.com/Opentrons/opentrons/blob/edge/CONTRIBUTING.md#opening-pull-requests

To ensure your code is reviewed quickly and thoroughly, please fill out
the sections below to the best of your ability!
-->

# Overview

This PR adds a new testing script that allows us to test all kinds of
variations of the liquid-sense routine
it adds some additional features in the hardware control layer to change
up output options to during the probe so we can gate using the
buffer-on-pipette feature to a firmware version flag, since that feature
has to be compiled in separately

<!--
Use this section to describe your pull-request at a high level. If the
PR addresses any open issues, please tag the issues here.
-->

# Test Plan

<!--
Use this section to describe the steps that you took to test your Pull
Request.
If you did not perform any testing provide justification why.

OT-3 Developers: You should default to testing on actual physical
hardware.
Once again, if you did not perform testing against hardware, justify
why.

Note: It can be helpful to write a test plan before doing development

Example Test Plan (HTTP API Change)

- Verified that new optional argument `dance-party` causes the robot to
flash its lights, move the pipettes,
then home.
- Verified that when you omit the `dance-party` option the robot homes
normally
- Added protocol that uses `dance-party` argument to G-Code Testing
Suite
- Ran protocol that did not use `dance-party` argument and everything
was successful
- Added unit tests to validate that changes to pydantic model are
correct

-->

# Changelog

<!--
List out the changes to the code in this PR. Please try your best to
categorize your changes and describe what has changed and why.

Example changelog:
- Fixed app crash when trying to calibrate an illegal pipette
- Added state to API to track pipette usage
- Updated API docs to mention only two pipettes are supported

IMPORTANT: MAKE SURE ANY BREAKING CHANGES ARE PROPERLY COMMUNICATED
-->

# Review requests

<!--
Describe any requests for your reviewers here.
-->

# Risk assessment

<!--
Carefully go over your pull request and look at the other parts of the
codebase it may affect. Look for the possibility, even if you think it's
small, that your change may affect some other part of the system - for
instance, changing return tip behavior in protocol may also change the
behavior of labware calibration.

Identify the other parts of the system your codebase may affect, so that
in addition to your own review and testing, other people who may not
have the system internalized as much as you can focus their attention
and testing there.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: caila-marashaj <[email protected]>
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.

3 participants