-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 180
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
docs(api): remaining updates to Versioning page for 2.20 #16301
Conversation
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.
Brief comment. I may be missing some subtlety here.
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst
Outdated
@@ -137,6 +137,8 @@ Changes in API Versions | |||
Version 2.20 | |||
------------ | |||
|
|||
- Detect liquid presence within a well. The :py:meth:`.InstrumentContext.detect_liquid_presence()` and :py:meth:`.InstrumentContext.detect_liquid_presence()` building block commands let you do this at any point in your protocol. Or you can :ref:`enable liquid presence detection <lpd>` for all aspirations when loading a pipette (although this will add significant time to your protocol). |
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.
Hey, there are 2 identical :py:meth
links. Both go to the same place. Would it be simpler to use one link sort of like this:
The :py:meth:
.InstrumentContext.detect_liquid_presence( )
method and building block commands let you detect liquid in a well at any point in your protocol.
And instead of "let you do this" I recommend being explicit about what the "this" is, which is detect liquid -- even at the risk of being repetitious about writing "detect liquid."
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.
That's a typo, thank you!
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## edge #16301 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 73.62% 92.43% +18.80%
===========================================
Files 41 77 +36
Lines 2992 1283 -1709
===========================================
- Hits 2203 1186 -1017
+ Misses 789 97 -692
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.
That's it!
Overview
Add items to the Versioning docs page that weren't already included in previous feature-based PRs.
Test Plan and Hands on Testing
Sandbox
Changelog
2 bullets (LPD features, CSV RTP features).
Review requests
Anything missing?
Risk assessment
nil