Y26 031 labware location report by retention instructions

[wendyyang]

Closes #

Changes proposed in this pull request

add retention instruction column in location report table
add filter by retention instruction on the return record

Instructions for Reviewers

[All PRs] - Confirm PR template filled
[Feature Branches] - Review code
[Production Merges to main]
    - Check story numbers included
    - Check for debug code
    - Check version

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 87.30%. Comparing base (b24be70) to head (4d1e8fb).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #5637      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    87.34%   87.30%   -0.04%     
===========================================
  Files         1477     1477              
  Lines        33526    33532       +6     
  Branches      3550     3552       +2     
===========================================
- Hits         29284    29276       -8     
- Misses        4221     4235      +14     
  Partials        21       21              

Flag	Coverage Δ
javascript	50.00% <ø> (ø)
ruby	87.32% <100.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds retention-instruction support to Location Reports so users can filter returned labware by retention instruction, while persisting the selected instructions on the report record.

Changes:

• Add retention_instructions (serialized array) to LocationReport and persist it via a new DB column.
• Extend the selection form + controller strong params to allow multi-select retention instructions.
• Filter selected labware by retention instruction and add an RSpec scenario for it.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
spec/models/location_report_spec.rb	Adds coverage for filtering by retention instruction.
db/schema.rb	Updates schema with the new location_reports.retention_instructions column.
db/migrate/20260325134057_add_retention_instructions_to_lcation_reports.rb	Introduces the migration adding the new column.
app/views/location_reports/_location_labware_selection_form.html.erb	Adds a multi-select retention instruction filter UI.
app/models/location_report/location_report_form.rb	Passes retention_instructions from the form into the model.
app/models/location_report.rb	Serializes retention_instructions and filters labware results accordingly.
app/controllers/location_reports_controller.rb	Permits retention_instructions as an array param.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[BenTopping]

Couple questions about whether we need to support multiple retention_instructions.

N.B. Haven't tested locally.

[StephenHulme]

Looks good in general, but a couple comments and questions.

In the specs, why has plate_1_custom_metadatum changed to plate_1_retention_instruction?

[wendyyang]

Looks good in general, but a couple comments and questions.

In the specs, why has plate_1_custom_metadatum changed to plate_1_retention_instruction?

Because the retention instruction used to live in custom_metadata table, but now move to labware table. so the custom_metadata no longer needed.

[StephenHulme]

Looks good in general, but a couple comments and questions.
In the specs, why has plate_1_custom_metadatum changed to plate_1_retention_instruction?

Because the retention instruction used to live in custom_metadata table, but now move to labware table. so the custom_metadata no longer needed.

Was the old column deleted? If so, how did this test pass before the change was made? Or was the column move made in an earlier PR and these tests were not updated?

[wendyyang]

Looks good in general, but a couple comments and questions.
In the specs, why has plate_1_custom_metadatum changed to plate_1_retention_instruction?

Because the retention instruction used to live in custom_metadata table, but now move to labware table. so the custom_metadata no longer needed.

Was the old column deleted? If so, how did this test pass before the change was made? Or was the column move made in an earlier PR and these tests were not updated?

It wasn't a column, it is a table called 'custom_metadata' , the table has 'key' & 'value' column, so can store different type of data, the retention instruction was stored there using key 'retention_instruction'. Since the table 'custom_metadata' schema/columns not changed, so the test still works, just not returning any data, I think.

[StephenHulme]

Ah that makes a lot more sense, thanks - I'd forgotton that that table used a key-value architecture.