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): simulate liquid probe results #17582

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: edge
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

caila-marashaj
Copy link
Contributor

@caila-marashaj caila-marashaj commented Feb 25, 2025

Overview

In implementing liquid probing, we implemented a placeholder for simulating liquid_probe_in_place, where we just return the top position of a well unconditionally. This is fine for testing aspirate, but causes a problem if you want to dispense, or really simulate a realistic chain of liquid handling actions.

This code changes that simulated liquid probe so that it returns "SimulatedProbeResult", and passes that into the protocol engine. This subsequently also requires a bunch of checks where pipette-related move-planning is done in the engine to see if values are floats or this SimulatedProbeResult Literal.

Changelog

  • have VirtualPipettingHandler::liquid_probe_in_place return "SimulatedProbeResult" instead of well depth
  • create a SimulatedType in update_types (I'm not sure if this is necessary lmk please)
  • everywhere a liquid probe result would be passed into in the protocol engine, give it the ability to handle a SimulatedProbeResult also

Test Plan

  • check that protocols involving both liquid tracking and regular aspirate/dispense pass protocol analysis
  • make sure liquid tracking protocols still behave as they do on edge
  • make sure non-liquid tracking aspirate/dispense protocols behave as they do on edge
  • unit tests

@caila-marashaj caila-marashaj changed the title Simulate liquid probe result feat(api): simulate liquid probe results Feb 25, 2025
@caila-marashaj caila-marashaj marked this pull request as ready for review February 25, 2025 20:04
@caila-marashaj caila-marashaj requested a review from a team as a code owner February 25, 2025 20:04
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.

1 participant