-
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): API reference entries for liquid class methods #17887
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## chore_release-8.4.0 #17887 +/- ##
====================================================
Coverage 28.90% 28.90%
====================================================
Files 3101 3101
Lines 235465 235465
Branches 19131 19131
====================================================
Hits 68066 68066
Misses 167375 167375
Partials 24 24
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
ec94022
to
a49ec8a
Compare
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.
Left two comments that can also just serve as reminders for me, so yes good to merge to keep docs moving along!
|
||
TODO: Add args description. | ||
:param liquid_class: The type of liquid to move. You must specify the liquid class, |
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.
question/suggestion here- yes, users must specify the liquid class, but the liquid class load name isn't accepted, only a label you've assigned the liquid class earlier in your protocol, like liquid_1
with define_liquid_class()
.
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.
We better make sure people don't try transfer_with_liquid_class(...liquid=define_liquid_class("water"))
because that will escalate quickly.
…y-path * chore_release-8.4.0: (30 commits) fix(api): make error message clearer for lld issues (#18005) chore(locize): sync for translations needed (#18009) chore(locize): sync translations (#18009) docs(api): API reference entries for liquid class methods (#17887) refactor(api): change the names of liquid classes based transfers (#18006) feat(app, labware-library): add evotip definition assets (#18007) fix(api, shared-data): Flex Stacker engine command optional fields (#17989) fix(shared-data): ethanol aspirate position reference (#17991) fix(app): Labware setup UI fixes (#17987) refactor(app): adjust protocol setup offsets table header (#17985) fix(app): do not show post run drop tip prompt if just handled in Error Recovery (#17981) fix(app): fix LPC disabled reasons not including fixture mismatch (#17979) refactor(app): adjust width on "calibrate now" button (#17978) fix(app): fix applying offsets implicitly when navigating on the desktop app (#17967) feat(robot-server): Populate `locationSequence` on old runs and make it faster to filter out deleted offsets (#17946) feat(app): add inline notification when setting default offsets with a 96ch (#17977) fix(app): ER tip selection crashes when trying to get labware def (#17975) feat(robot-server,system-server): Return server timing metrics in HTTP responses (#17970) fix(app): fix accumulating offsets on run record (#17969) fix(app): Fix local state issues when "resetting to default" in LPC (#17965) ...
Overview
Adding methods like
transfer_with_liquid_class()
to the API reference.Addresses RTC-610.
Any follow-up edits to these docstrings can be handled in #17992.
Test Plan and Hands on Testing
Sandbox
Changelog
LiquidClass
to the ref.Review requests
Are these "good enough"? Want to get these merged to keep other liquid class docs work moving.
Risk assessment
low, docs