Skip to content
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

feat(api): scrape off tips towards the center of the tiprack on return tip #17526

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Feb 19, 2025

Conversation

ryanthecoder
Copy link
Contributor

Overview

We have seen rare instances where static electricity pulls tips back onto the nozzle during return tip. Starting on the new API version, the motion planner will now move the ejector plate all the way down, then move the pipette towards the center of the tip rack before re-raising the ejector plate. As a result this scrapes off any statically connected tips so there is no chance for them to be pulled back up when the ejector recedes back into the pipette.

Test Plan and Hands on Testing

Changelog

Review requests

Risk assessment

@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder requested review from a team as code owners February 13, 2025 22:21
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 13, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 26.17%. Comparing base (d57e910) to head (3c5d9e4).
Report is 73 commits behind head on edge.

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #17526      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   26.21%   26.17%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files        3198     3186      -12     
  Lines      230986   232870    +1884     
  Branches     9883    10562     +679     
==========================================
+ Hits        60562    60955     +393     
- Misses     170399   171889    +1490     
- Partials       25       26       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
protocol-designer 18.85% <ø> (+1.32%) ⬆️
step-generation 4.35% <ø> (+0.28%) ⬆️

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

see 129 files with indirect coverage changes

Copy link
Member

@sfoster1 sfoster1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks excellent, nice work!

@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder force-pushed the EXEC-1203-scrape-off-on-return-tip branch from ea40e92 to bc1cc3d Compare February 14, 2025 19:27
@ryanthecoder ryanthecoder merged commit 1430b12 into edge Feb 19, 2025
54 checks passed
ryanthecoder added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2025
…n tip (#17526)

<!--
Thanks for taking the time to open a Pull Request (PR)! Please make sure
you've read the "Opening Pull Requests" section of our Contributing
Guide:

https://github.com/Opentrons/opentrons/blob/edge/CONTRIBUTING.md#opening-pull-requests

GitHub provides robust markdown to format your PR. Links, diagrams,
pictures, and videos along with text formatting make it possible to
create a rich and informative PR. For more information on GitHub
markdown, see:

https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax

To ensure your code is reviewed quickly and thoroughly, please fill out
the sections below to the best of your ability!
-->

We have seen rare instances where static electricity pulls tips back
onto the nozzle during return tip. Starting on the new API version, the
motion planner will now move the ejector plate all the way down, then
move the pipette towards the center of the tip rack before re-raising
the ejector plate. As a result this scrapes off any statically connected
tips so there is no chance for them to be pulled back up when the
ejector recedes back into the pipette.
<!--
Describe your PR at a high level. State acceptance criteria and how this
PR fits into other work. Link issues, PRs, and other relevant resources.
-->

<!--
Describe your testing of the PR. Emphasize testing not reflected in the
code. Attach protocols, logs, screenshots and any other assets that
support your testing.
-->

<!--
List changes introduced by this PR considering future developers and the
end user. Give careful thought and clear documentation to breaking
changes.
-->

<!--
- What do you need from reviewers to feel confident this PR is ready to
merge?
- Ask questions.
-->

<!--
- Indicate the level of attention this PR needs.
- Provide context to guide reviewers.
- Discuss trade-offs, coupling, and side effects.
- Look for the possibility, even if you think it's small, that your
change may affect some other part of the system.
- For instance, changing return tip behavior may also change the
behavior of labware calibration.
- How do your unit tests and on hands on testing mitigate this PR's
risks and the risk of future regressions?
- Especially in high risk PRs, explain how you know your testing is
enough.
-->
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants