feat(app): Expose Labware Calibration Status on the FileInfo Page #6100
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Laura-Danielle
added
feature
Laura-Danielle
requested review from
pantslakz,
a team and
b-cooper
and removed request for
a team
mcous
reviewed
Jul 9, 2020
app/src/calibration/labware/epic/fetchAllLabwareCalibrationEpic.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
app/src/calibration/labware/epic/__tests__/fetchLabwareCalibrationsEpic.test.js
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Laura-Danielle
force-pushed
the
app_expose_labware_calibration_status
branch
from
530d447 to
9f3be08
Compare
Laura-Danielle
added
api
mcous
previously requested changes
Jul 20, 2020
app/src/calibration/labware/__fixtures__/labware-calibration.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
app/src/calibration/labware/epic/__tests__/fetchLabwareCalibrationsEpic.test.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## edge #6100 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 67.61%
=======================================
Files ? 1213
Lines ? 33793
Branches ? 0
=======================================
Hits ? 22848
Misses ? 10945
Partials ? 0
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Summary of changes that I pushed:
|
b-cooper
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2020
|
|
||
| // TODO(mc, 2020-07-27): this selector should move to a protocol-focused module | ||
| // when we don't have to rely on RPC-state selectors for protocol equipment info | ||
| // NOTE(mc, 2020-07-27): due to how these endpo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment was truncated somehow? Should it be removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, I should finish that comment. It was adding a note that v1 labware will always return "no calibration data" and that needs to be accounted for in UI
| target.loadName === loadName && | ||
| target.namespace === namespace && | ||
| target.version === version && | ||
| (!parent || target.parent === parent) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If !parent is supposed to matching the case where parent === '', it would be clearer to write that check explicitly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is checking the case where parent === null (modulesBySlot[slot].model can never be '' to my knowledge), but good call on the explicit check, regardless
|
|
||
| export function Continue(): React.Node { | ||
| const { path, disabledReason } = useSelector(getCalibrateLocation) | ||
| const [targetProps, tooltipProps] = useHoverTooltip({ |
3 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Overview
Closes #5555 . This is the front-end side of skipping labware calibration.
Changelog
labware/calibrationsendpointReview requests
There are more endpoints under
labware/calibrationsto access a single labware calibration -- I wasn't sure if this was useful to implement at this time. Happy to add it to the pull request as needed (wouldn't be used in any of the components here).I am also still working on some more component tests (having issues with mocks), but I wanted to get this in front of people. Let me know if there are other tests I should add.
Test Plan
not yet calibratedProceed to Calibrateand bring you to the calibration pageProceed to Runand bring you to the run pageRisk assessment
High, this is a new user facing feature that will be used very often. We should thoroughly test and go through user testing rigors. Should this potentially be behind a feature flag?
┆Issue is synchronized with this Wrike Task by Unito