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

chore(hardware-testing): Mergeback production script fixes #14159

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 12, 2024

Conversation

ryanthecoder
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

Test Plan

Changelog

Review requests

Risk assessment

@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder force-pushed the mergeback-production-script-fixes branch from 03de49d to 0873643 Compare March 7, 2024 16:11
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 7, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.71%. Comparing base (2044d6b) to head (0873643).
Report is 55 commits behind head on edge.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             edge   #14159   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.71%   67.71%           
=======================================
  Files        2510     2510           
  Lines       72245    72245           
  Branches     9287     9287           
=======================================
  Hits        48921    48921           
  Misses      21096    21096           
  Partials     2228     2228           
Flag Coverage Δ
app 64.68% <ø> (ø)
components 49.02% <ø> (ø)
hardware-testing ∅ <ø> (∅)
labware-library 41.11% <ø> (ø)
protocol-designer 37.90% <ø> (ø)
react-api-client 66.38% <ø> (ø)
step-generation 86.88% <ø> (ø)

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

@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder marked this pull request as ready for review March 7, 2024 17:06
@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder requested a review from a team as a code owner March 7, 2024 17:06
@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder merged commit dad3b0c into edge Mar 12, 2024
33 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

<!--
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.
-->
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