-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 179
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(api): ensure critical points are acceptable for a 96 channel #11890
fix(api): ensure critical points are acceptable for a 96 channel #11890
Conversation
We were using the original calculations for 8 channel pipttes in the Y direction for both XY_CENTER and FRONT_NOZZLE. This logic works because the Y element equals the number of channels. That is no longer the case for the 96 channels so we need to temporarily modify the calculation so that the critical point calculation is correct for the 96 channel AND 8 channel. The long term fix is to add critical point information for all pipette nozzles as individual points/positions.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## RLIQ-131-support-96-channel #11890 +/- ##
===============================================================
- Coverage 74.37% 74.27% -0.10%
===============================================================
Files 2140 2122 -18
Lines 60117 58898 -1219
Branches 6624 6218 -406
===============================================================
- Hits 44712 43748 -964
+ Misses 13863 13684 -179
+ Partials 1542 1466 -76
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
think the offsets are slightly wrong. maybe give them a name including the destination and origin for the vector, like BACK_NOZZLE_OFFSET_FROM_CENTER
or something
offsets[1] | ||
- INTERNOZZLE_SPACING_MM * (self._config.channels.as_int - 1) | ||
), | ||
offsets[1] - y_offset_by_spacing, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
something's wrong here - FRONT_NOZZLE
and XY_CENTER
shouldn't have the same y offset. should this be x_offset_by_spacing * 2
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yep that was definitely an oversight.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me!
Overview
We were using the original calculations for 8 channel pipttes in the Y direction for both XY_CENTER and FRONT_NOZZLE. This logic works because the Y element equals the number of channels. That is no longer the case for the 96 channels so we need to temporarily modify the calculation so that the critical point calculation is correct for the 96 channel AND 8 channel. The long term fix is to add critical point information for all pipette nozzles as individual points/positions.
Changelog
Pipette
instrument tests to work for both pipette objects.Risk assessment
Low. Should only change behavior for 96 channel.