docs(api): clarify in docs that Well.has_tip checks only for clean tips #17412
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Definitely an improvement.
I think we should define what we mean by "clean"/"dirty", if we can. I think it's in fact a question of whether a pipette has picked it up, right? But it sounds like it could also mean whether a pipette has aspirated liquid into it.
|
I believe @SyntaxColoring is correct here.
For example, the section on working with used tips indicates a tip is "used" after being picked up. So does picked up = used and/or dirty in this case, even if it is never used for anything? If this is the case maybe "clean" or "unclean" aren't the right words to use. For example, when sterility is required, maybe just touching the tip or picking it up is enough to render it "unclean." The words "used" and "unused" seem more accurate and neutral. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It appears I added my comments in the wrong place. Please see #17412 (comment)
|
OK yeah, if other parts of the docs say "used", then we should make sure the terminology matches. |
Co-authored-by: Max Marrone <[email protected]>
…ips (#17412) Closes RQA-3790 # Overview `Well.has_tip` property has been checking for only clean/ unused tips since API v2.2 but the docstrings don't mention that. That has understandably caused some confusion in protocol behaviors. This PR helps mitigate that issue by clarifying the exact behavior of this property ## Risk assessment None. --------- Co-authored-by: Max Marrone <[email protected]>
…ips (#17455) Cherry-picked commit for 8.3.0 release branch Original PR: #17412 Closes RQA-3790 # Overview `Well.has_tip` property has been checking for only clean/ unused tips since API v2.2 but the docstrings don't mention that. That has understandably caused some confusion in protocol behaviors. This PR helps mitigate that issue by clarifying the exact behavior of this property ## Risk assessment None. Co-authored-by: Max Marrone <[email protected]>
…ips (#17412) Closes RQA-3790 # Overview `Well.has_tip` property has been checking for only clean/ unused tips since API v2.2 but the docstrings don't mention that. That has understandably caused some confusion in protocol behaviors. This PR helps mitigate that issue by clarifying the exact behavior of this property ## Risk assessment None. --------- Co-authored-by: Max Marrone <[email protected]>
Closes RQA-3790
Overview
Well.has_tipproperty has been checking for only clean tips since API v2.2 but the docstrings don't mention that. That has understandably caused some confusion in protocol behaviors. This PR helps mitigate that issue by clarifying the exact behavior of this propertyReview requests
Is the language clear enough?
Risk assessment
None.