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(release): Add release notes for v7.2.0 database migrations #14409

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 2, 2024

Conversation

SyntaxColoring
Copy link
Contributor

Changelog

Explain that the /runs/commands endpoints should be faster now. This covers #14348.

Explain that there will be a slow migration upon first boot. This covers #14348 and #14355. See RSS-451 for the math behind my estimate of 25 minutes.

Review requests

Do we want to be more nuanced about the expected update time? It's likely to be much faster if you only ever run short protocols. See RSS-451.

Is suggesting a device reset to avoid the migration delay a good idea? Note that the device reset incurs its own reboot, so it will eat up a few minutes on its own.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 1, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (1e10a79) 68.25% compared to head (e7e18c2) 68.25%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on edge.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             edge   #14409   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   68.25%   68.25%           
=======================================
  Files        1629     1629           
  Lines       54889    54889           
  Branches     4125     4125           
=======================================
  Hits        37465    37465           
  Misses      16735    16735           
  Partials      689      689           
Flag Coverage Δ
g-code-testing 96.48% <ø> (ø)

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

Copy link
Contributor

@ecormany ecormany left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems fine to me for now. We'll probably want to do another edit pass once we're closer to release.

For example, I think when we had delay notices like this in the past, we put them at the top for extra visibility.

@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring merged commit 8485b67 into edge Feb 2, 2024
38 checks passed
@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring deleted the db_release_notes branch February 2, 2024 02:47

This update may take longer than usual if your robot has a lot of long protocols and runs stored on it. Allow **approximately 25 minutes** for your robot to restart. This delay will only happen once.

If you don't care about preserving your labware offsets and run history, you can avoid the delay. Clear your runs and protocols before starting this update. Go to **Robot Settings** > **Device Reset** and select **Clear protocol run history**.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I wonder if the first sentence could be removed altogether. Go straight into the tip about making the update faster. Let the reader decide if they want to remove runs and protocols or not.

"For faster update times, clear all your runs and protocols from the robot before starting this process. Go to Robot Settings > Device Reset and select Clear protocol run history."

OR

"For faster update times, you can clear ..."
"For faster update times, consider clearing ..."

Maybe then end with a sentence that conveys the idea that clearing this stored/saved info is optional.

Copy link
Contributor

@jwwojak jwwojak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Left comments for your consideration.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants