Add name field to pipette v2 general specs

[smb2268]

Overview

We need a to add name to v2 of pipette specs under general since it isn't otherwise represented in this version of the schema. The name for each pipette is pulled from the key of pipetteNameSpecs and the name field of pipetteModelSpecs

Test Plan

Changelog

Review requests

Risk assessment

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.36%. Comparing base (ccc944e) to head (9fabef6).
Report is 2 commits behind head on edge.

❗ Current head 9fabef6 differs from pull request most recent head 721668a

Please upload reports for the commit 721668a to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #15251       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   92.43%   81.36%   -11.08%     
===========================================
  Files          77      119       +42     
  Lines        1283     4100     +2817     
===========================================
+ Hits         1186     3336     +2150     
- Misses         97      764      +667     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shared-data	76.32% <ø> (?)

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

see 42 files with indirect coverage changes

[jerader]

nice, lgtm! Might be good to add a quick pytest for this though - maybe similarly to test_model_enum in shared-data/python/tests/pipette/test_pipette_definition.py but instead of testing a model, it tests that each name equals a PipetteNameType (just a suggestion, i'd defer to @sfoster1's recommendations on test coverage 😄)

[sfoster1]

nice, lgtm! Might be good to add a quick pytest for this though - maybe similarly to test_model_enum in shared-data/python/tests/pipette/test_pipette_definition.py but instead of testing a model, it tests that each name equals a PipetteNameType (just a suggestion, i'd defer to @sfoster1's recommendations on test coverage 😄)

Yeah, I agree

[sfoster1]

I agree with @jerader 's point about adding a test, but looking at this in practice I'm a little worried that we're still implicitly relying on data from v1 of the pipette definitions - specifically the PipetteName type.

Can tsc load type data from jsonschema? If so, maybe the right thing to do here is actually for this to be an enum in the schema so tsc can pick it up there. That ability would be enough for me to want to encode it in the schema instead of implicitly, even though I'd previously made the point that we should do that.

[y3rsh]

I think the plan for this is a retarget at edge, it will not be in 8.0.0