Update LiquidHandlerBackend Naming: Part 1 - Trigger Warning #464
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
BioCam
changed the title
BioCam
changed the title
BioCam
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi everyone,
Currently PLR's main
LiquidHandlerBackends are named directly what their liquid handler is called.This generates a problem:
We would like to call frontend class (parameterized) definition functions the full name, since the frontend represents these machines in their entirety, i.e. the physical definition (/resource) + their programmatic control (/backend).
In this small PR I am proposing renaming these:
STAR()->STARBackend()Vantage()->VantageBackend()EVO()->EVOBackend()(I was not sure about how the OT2 is implemented, I would like to ask for a volunteer to check its compliance with these changes)
...this is in accordance with the updated documentation of the "PLR Architecture" in the latest docs rehaul:
Note: In this PR I am purposefully not deleting the old naming completely because (I would imagine) the vast majority of PLR-based automated protocols uses these LiquidHandlerBackend classes.
Instead I am proposing a 1 month transition period in which instantiation of the old classes will still work but trigger a warning, informing the user to update their code.
After 1 month of warnings I propose we remove the warning and replace it with an error message that forces users to transition to the new class names.