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(shared-data): add deck schema v6 #17250

Draft
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: edge
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sfoster1
Copy link
Member

This schema contains a concept of "locating features" for addressable areas. These locating features are things that constrain the position of labware loaded on top of the addressable area. The presence of a locating feature indicates that the addressable area can contain deck items. Which locating feature is available constrains which labware can be loaded; different labware define different locatable features (for instance, their back left or front left corners, or the outer surface of one of their wells).

Locating feature names are not constrained to enums because we expect a fairly wide number of them.

To come out of draft

  • positions for modules that are not currently in

risk

low, because nothing should be using this (purposeful, will be followup prs)

Closes EXEC-80

This schema contains a concept of "locating features" for addressable
areas. These locating features are things that constrain the position of
labware loaded on top of the addressable area. The presence of a
locating feature indicates that the addressable area can contain deck
items. Which locating feature is available constrains which labware can
be loaded; different labware define different locatable features (for
instance, their back left or front left corners, or the outer surface of
one of their wells).

Locating feature names are not constrained to enums because we expect a
fairly wide number of them.

Closes EXEC-80
@sfoster1 sfoster1 requested review from a team as code owners January 10, 2025 20:20
@sfoster1 sfoster1 requested review from ncdiehl11 and removed request for a team January 10, 2025 20:20
@sfoster1 sfoster1 marked this pull request as draft January 10, 2025 20:20
Copy link
Contributor

@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great so far. Very excited for this.

shared-data/deck/schemas/6.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
shared-data/js/__tests__/deckSchemas.test.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
shared-data/deck/definitions/6/ot2_standard.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 14, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.04%. Comparing base (9a28d32) to head (ec51ac0).
Report is 141 commits behind head on edge.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #17250      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.84%   74.04%   +0.20%     
==========================================
  Files          43       43              
  Lines        3303     3329      +26     
==========================================
+ Hits         2439     2465      +26     
  Misses        864      864              
Flag Coverage Δ
shared-data 74.04% <100.00%> (+0.20%) ⬆️

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

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...data/python/opentrons_shared_data/deck/__init__.py 65.62% <ø> (ø)
...ed-data/python/opentrons_shared_data/deck/types.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

sfoster1 and others added 5 commits January 14, 2025 10:36
Remove the duplicate entry for v4 and add the missing entries for v5 and v6.

This appears unused, but we may as well correct it.
This has a matingSurfaceUnitVector field, which does not exist in schema 6. Rename the type so it doesn't look more generally usable than it actually is.
Copy link
Contributor

@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring 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 so far, other than whatever modules are missing.

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