-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 177
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): allow some way of force ejecting tip even if the robot doesn't think it's attached #6243
Comments
I've also tried to hack into thinking there was a tip attached so I could then call |
Hello again @MarcelRobitaille! Fancy meeting you here. This is pretty frustrating behavior. I think it's a symptom of tip tracking state living just a little bit lower in the stack than it probably should. The behavior comes from a place of the hardware controller needing to take tip length into account to understand how to move a given pipette. That fact snowballed into "the hardware controller keeps track of tip state" and then, without considering the larger implications, "the hardware controller should check if a tip is attached before trying to drop it". This is a really good ticket to factor into some foundational protocol behavior work that is happening right now. In the meantime, though, I think we should see if we can remove that check in the hardware controller in a safe manner. There really doesn't appear to be a good workaround for this; even if you go through private APIs it's messy (and brittle) enough for it to be a pretty bad idea |
Thinking is that fixing #5248 will make this moot in practice, though a fundamental fix would still be nice. |
@mattwelch why does that make it moot? |
@MarcelRobitaille sorry, this looks like a potential typo or miscommunication. Feel free to disregard; unentangling the tip drop procedure from tip attached state is still on our radar |
Overview
Trying to run a protocol when a tip is already on a pipette (e.g. due to an abandoned previous protocol) leads to bad times, with collisions etc. Unfortunately one can't just add
pipette.drop_tip
to the top of a protocol because thedrop_tip
command asserts that the instrument has picked up a tip.I've spent a while looking at hacking this and it's not very straightforward.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: