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): 7.3.0 #15069

Merged
merged 488 commits into from
May 28, 2024
Merged

chore(release): 7.3.0 #15069

merged 488 commits into from
May 28, 2024

Conversation

y3rsh
Copy link
Member

@y3rsh y3rsh commented May 2, 2024

This is the release tracking branch for 7.3.0

koji and others added 30 commits April 8, 2024 13:00
* refactor(components): update parameter table stories
* refactor(components): update Box stories
# Overview

Add feature flag for Performance Metrics project. 
Closes https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/EXEC-372

# Changelog 

- Add enablePerformanceMetrics feature flag in advanced settings
- Add migration function
- Update tests
* refactor(app): remove RTP feature flag
Closes AUTH-255

# Overview

Adds a POST method to the existing `/protocols/{protocolId}/analyses`
endpoint in order to post a new analysis for an existing protocol.

This endpoint will take a request body with two optional fields:
- `runTimeParameterValues`
- `forceReAnalyze`

The new method can affect the analyses in three ways:
1. When the request is sent with `forceReAnalyze=True`, the server will
unconditionally start a new analysis for the protocol using any RTP data
sent along with it. It will return a 201 CREATED status and respond with
a list of analysis summaries of all the analyses (ordered oldest first),
including the newly started analysis.
2. When the request is sent without the `forceReAnalyze` field (or with
`forceReAnalyze=False`), then the server will check the last analysis of
the protocol
- if the RTP values used for it were **different** from the RTP values
sent with the current request, then the server will start a new analysis
using the new RTP values. It will return a 201 CREATED status and
respond with a list of analysis summaries of all the analyses, including
the newly started analysis.
- if the RTP values used for it were the **same** as the RTP values sent
with the current request, then the server will **NOT** start a new
analysis. It will return a 200 OK status, and simply return the existing
list of analysis summaries.

This request requires the last analysis of the protocol to have been
completed before handling this request. If the last analysis is pending,
it will return a 503 error.

# Test Plan

Test out the above three cases and anything else you can think might
affect the behavior.
It's pretty well tested in unit & integration tests and it is also the
same logic used for handling analyses from `POST /protocols`, so it is
expected to work well when used as tested in integration tests.

# Review requests

Usual review for code sanity check.

# Risk assessment

Low. New HTTP API not yet used anywhere.
<!--
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]>
<!--
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.
-->

Improved ABR Error Data Collection

# Test Plan

Tested code on multiple robots.

# Changelog

Added function to download robot logs
Added lines of code to move error documents (run log, calibration log,
robot logs) into folder named after ticket.
Adds robot run to ABR sheet and links JIRA ticket
Added extra lines to abr_scale to read scale more often
Edited ABR calibration script to ensure duplicate calibrations are not
added.

# Review requests

Is 5000 lines of recording enough to capture robot error if script is
run immediately?
Is there any manipulation to robot logs that can be down to make error
analysis more efficient.

# 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.
-->
Into edge instead of release branch.

Was #14840

Co-authored-by: Jamey Huffnagle <[email protected]>
* fix(shared-data, app): fix runtime parameters range display
When we switched to vite, we had to switch all the stuff we'd been
injecting at pack time via webpack environment/define plugins to vite's
`define` config functionality. The biggest thing we specify that way is
the app version, which is used across the stack for display and for
logic.

In the commit that switched to vite, we added that injection for the
app-shell vite configs but did not add it for the app vite configs. That
meant that at runtime, the version value was undefined, which breaks
robot update notifications and causes the app version in the general
settings tab to not display (it also makes the logo wrong on internal
releases but that's a bit less important).

The fix is to inject the version into the app build again. This is made
a little more complicated because if you're doing stuff to the app vite
config, it has to work in both the vite devserver and the vite offline
packaging environments, and the vite devserver doesn't allow commonjs,
and the git-version script that gives us the version is commonjs. For
the purposes of vite's devserver, "doesn't work with cjs" actually just
means "doesn't support require()", so you can use a hybrid syntax that
uses import-statements but still module.export instead of export
statements.

Unfortunately, the git-version script is also used in the
electron-builder config for the app-shell and the app-shell-odd, and the
electron-builder config is run via node, and to import an ESM from a
node CJS script - which electron-builder.config.js is - you need to
change your import syntax to dynamic import and you need to make the
import target explicitly (to node) an ESM, aka change its extension, and
you need to use full ESM syntax including exports. This also goes for
the create-release script.

So that means that
- git-version.js becomes git-version.mjs and uses full ESM syntax
- that means that everywhere it's imported we need to import it by full
path with extension instead of module name
- also we need to import it dynamically in the electron config
- oh and we need to actually add the define configs so we get the
version in the app

And then finally we show the version again.

Also, remove some old webpack.config.js files that aren't used anymore.

Closes EXEC-385
* fix(shared-data, app): fix small issues in app
* fix(discovery-client): fix import statement
…rons-ai (#14788)

* feat(opentrons-ai-client, opentrons-ai-server): add folders for opentrons-ai
This PR is an automated snapshot update request. Please review the
changes and merge if they are acceptable or find you bug and fix it.

Co-authored-by: y3rsh <[email protected]>
* fix(app): fix rtp slideout issue
* fix(app-shell-odd): fix typo in vite-config
The schema changes in edge weren't in release and need to be manually
merged.

Closes RQA-2558
sanni-t and others added 28 commits May 8, 2024 18:46
)

Closes AUTH-379

# Overview

#14345 updated the module ports filtering to exclude any temporary ports
created by udev. But the regex used for port name matching filters out
only Flex port names (e.g. `ot_module_thermocycler2.tmp-c166:2`). This
PR adds regex to filter out OT-2 temp ports as well (e.g.
`.#ot_module_thermocycler0b494617b5e4f08ae`).

# Risk assessment

Medium. Can affect module connectivity but is easy to test and rule out
any issues.
* fix(app): update InputField styling
* fix(app): remove padding from lpc flex box
…on liquid map (#15132)

Closes RQA-2699

At protocol setup on desktop, when viewing liquid setup > map view, liquids are incorrectly set to null for labware nested on an adapter, which is in turn nested on a module. We need to pass the topmost nested labware to getWellFillFromLabwareId to correctly return populated well fill.
adds focus state, file name truncation, test, and story for FileUpload component. removes InputField title error color. removes anonymous logo copy.

closes PLAT-292,  RQA-2689, RQA-2690, RQA-2701
* fix(app): fix font size in lpc table
Fix Deck hardware table padding in desktop protocol setup. Fix padding
in no modules detected modal.
standardize copy for title and description fo protocol setup steps.
standardize copy for header and
description in ODD location conflict modal

Closes [RQA-2687](https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2687),
Closes [RQA-2686](https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2686),
Closes [RQA-2684](https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2684),
Closes [RQA-2685](https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2685),
Closes [RQA-2692](https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2692)
…component (#15145)

* fix(app): fix password button rendering issue and update input field component
 RQA-2700
Ensure automatic tip tracking for partial configurations does not exceed the limits of the tiprack it is iterating over
<!--
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
After conducting hardware testing, we've formulated updated tip overlap
values for every tip size and pipette model. These adjustments apply to
1-channel, 8-channel, and 96-channel pipettes. These revised values aim
to mitigate overpressure occurrences in ABR.


[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16dEmqulO4SIKU6E0aYTfVQEnZRTn3MwNF_WB8K1KmRM/edit#gid=0](url)


<!--
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
None
<!--
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
### **Pipette shared data**
### P1KS Single Channel
- Updated V3_5 Tip Overlap values for 50uL, 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
- Updated V3_6 Tip Overlap values for 50uL 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
### P50S Single Channel Pipette
- Updated V3_5 Tip Overlap values for 50uL, 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
- Updated V3_6 Tip Overlap values for 50uL 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
### P1KM 8 Channel Pipette
- Updated V3_5 Tip Overlap values for 50uL, 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
- Updated V3_6 Tip Overlap values for 50uL 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
### P50M 8 Channel Pipette
- Updated V3_5 Tip Overlap values for 50uL, 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
- Updated V3_6 Tip Overlap values for 50uL 200uL, and 1000uL tips
### P1H 95-Channel Pipette
- Updated V3_5 Tip Overlap values for 50uL, 200uL, and 1000uL tips.
- Updated V3_6 Tip Overlap values for 50uL 200uL, and 1000uL tips

<!--
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
Low
<!--
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: Seth Foster <[email protected]>
#15178)

…(#15147)"

This reverts commit 0096c12.

The above commit needs to be gated behind a protocol API version.
# Overview

Communicating https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2554 as a known
issue that will be present in 7.3.0

# Review requests

Accurate and sufficient?

# Risk assessment

none
…start (#15179)

Show a 'Run was never started' InfoScreen under RunPreview for a terminal run that was never started (has 0 commands). Ensure we only fetch once to eliminate flickering.

Closes RQA-2717
…eAllCommandsAsPreSerializedList (#15188)

React query does not properly handle objects passed in useQuery's
queryKey array argument that contain keys with `undefined` values. Here,
in `useAllCommandsAsPreSerializedList`, I map undefined values to null
so that they are properly cached and do not trigger a refetch when the
host object does not change.
…ype via RTP (#15194)

# Overview

Letting people know they can get chicken-and-egg'd if they apply labware
offsets, set RTPs that change their labware, and then reanalysis gets
rid of their original offsets.

# Review requests

Is this clear? This is kind of a tricky one to wrap up in a single
sentence.

# Risk assessment

zip
…w OT2 module setup (#15204)

Don't look to deck configuration for matching specced modules to
attached modules within the module
setup step of the OT-2

Closes [RQA-2735](https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2735)
…15205)

Closes RQA-2731

On OT-2, after a pipette is attached or detached successfully, the exit
button should only be clickable once, so that many home commands are not
emitted in rapid succession with each click.
Closes RQA-2730

Remove InterventionModal if run is finishing
…15202)

Instead of the previous method of staging a batch of changes to deck
configuration before commiting
them with the confirm button, to avoid synchronization issues, make the
ODD deck configurator behave
like the desktop version. all updates immediately permeate to the
robot's source of truth

Re: https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2669
I think this would be a subtle side effect of a previous pr trying to
improve PE end behavior.

The reason this fix is required is that when a client cancels a protocol
by stopping the engine, the `StopAction` sets the run result (good) and
doesn't set a run error (good, correct, there wasn't one, this is a
cancel). In 7.2, with the behavior this PR now restores, a
`FinishAction` that might contain an error wouldn't set that error in
the run if it already had a _result_, whether or not it had an _error_.
In 7.3, it would set the error if the engine had no error, which it
wouldn't, because there is no error when you stop.

## Testing
- [x] With this PR, cancelling a run on a real robot causes the ODD to
show an inactive error details button
- [x] With this PR, stopping a run by hitting an estop still causes the
ODD and desktop to display that an estop error cancelled the run

Closes RQA-2737

---------

Co-authored-by: Max Marrone <[email protected]>
…nt for thermocycler occupying 2 slots (#15239)

Ensure slot conflict checking accounts for the thermocycler being comprised of two fixtures in the deck config when validating the cutout fixtures.
…f the required modules (#15232)

Fix bug where we were accidentally filtering magnetic modules instead of
magnetic blocks from the
required modules list from analysis.

Closes [RQA-2754](https://opentrons.atlassian.net/browse/RQA-2754)
…t channels (#15259)

Closes RQA-2780
Ensures the engine correctly identifies the next valid column for an 8ch pickup after a
sequence of single channel pickups.
Copy link

@nusrat813 nusrat813 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@y3rsh y3rsh merged commit 2afa859 into release May 28, 2024
104 of 105 checks passed
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.