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

refactor(docs): clean up Versioning page #12084

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 3, 2023
Merged

Conversation

ecormany
Copy link
Contributor

@ecormany ecormany commented Jan 31, 2023

Overview

The Versioning page of the Python API docs was due for an editing pass.

Addresses RTC-55.

Test Plan

Proofread and check all reference links in sandbox for this PR.

Changelog

  • Edited prose in Versioning article
  • Reworded release note for version 2.7 to be clearer about the tentative introduction and removal of pair_with()
  • Very light edits in other release notes (these should be preserved as a record of our changes, but there were a couple typos and house style violations).

Review requests

TC: Clean prose?
Eng: All feature descriptions and code are accurate?

Risk assessment

none, docs only

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 31, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #12084 (d2dc5d5) into edge (2cd7948) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #12084      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   73.99%   73.99%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2197     2197              
  Lines       60839    60839              
  Branches     6456     6456              
==========================================
- Hits        45017    45016       -1     
  Misses      14300    14300              
- Partials     1522     1523       +1     
Flag Coverage Δ
notify-server 89.13% <ø> (ø)

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

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
app-shell/src/system-info/usb-devices.ts 81.48% <0.00%> (-3.71%) ⬇️

@ecormany ecormany marked this pull request as ready for review February 1, 2023 15:44
@ecormany ecormany requested a review from a team as a code owner February 1, 2023 15:44
Copy link
Contributor

@SyntaxColoring SyntaxColoring left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines +13 to +15
The major version of the API increases whenever there are significant structural or behavioral changes to protocols. For instance, major version 2 of the API was introduced because it required protocols to have a ``run`` function that takes a ``protocol`` argument rather than importing the ``robot``, ``instruments``, and ``labware`` modules. Protocols written with major version 1 of the API will not run without modification in major version 2. A similar level of structural change would require a major version 3. This documentation only deals with features found in major version 2 of the API; see the `archived version 1 documentation <https://docs.opentrons.com/v1/index.html>`_ for information on older protocols.

The minor version of the API increases whenever there is new functionality that might change the way a protocol is written, or when a behavior changes in one aspect of the API but does not affect all protocols. For instance, adding support for a new hardware module, adding new parameters for a function, or deprecating a feature would increase the minor version of the API.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm. What do we mean here by "deprecating a feature"? Actually removing it and making it unavailable, or just stating that we discourage it?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ecormany ecormany Feb 2, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We do need to standardize that terminology, but the facts on the ground are that we have completely removed features and not bumped major version. Although perhaps "completely" overstates it, if you can lower your apiLevel and get that behavior "back".

Copy link
Contributor

@jwwojak jwwojak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Glad this caught and fixed 2 typos in the intro, the items:

  • "or of"
  • APi (with the lower case i)

api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Version specification is required by the system. If you do not specify a target API version, you will not be able to simulate or run your protocol.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd suggest this, "An API version level is required. You cannot simulate or run a protocol if you do not specify an API version."

The text "API version level" echos apiLevel but does it in readable text.

And we can get rid of the "will not be able to" construction in the 2nd sentence. Plus, flipping the sentence around gets rid of the comma.

api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
api/docs/v2/versioning.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@jwwojak jwwojak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I added some comments and suggestions. The revisions in this PR are solid with or without adopting my changes. Thank you.

@ecormany ecormany merged commit 9cb9987 into edge Feb 3, 2023
@ecormany ecormany deleted the docs-versioning-cleanup branch February 3, 2023 20:09
y3rsh added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2023
* edge: (116 commits)
  feat(system-server): add sqlite database and barebones HTTP server (#12085)
  feat(ot3): add enableOT3FirmwareUpdates feature flag to gate firmware update functionality. (#12102)
  feat(app): add bare bones hardware section to protocol details (#12099)
  feat(app): Support failed calibrations in the calibration wizard (#12092)
  refactor(docs): clean up Versioning page (#12084)
  refactor(robot-server): Make run and protocol limits configurable at launch (#12094)
  feat(app): add robotServerVersion to display the current robot software version (#12096)
  fix(hardware): do not track tip motor positions (#12093)
  feat(engine): allow calibrateGripper command to save calibration data (#12046)
  feat(app, api-client, react-api-client): delete POC TLC calibration data from overflow menu (#12075)
  fix(api): actually update OT3 instrument calibration offset in cache instrument (#12089)
  fix(robot-server): correct the data returned from instruments endpoint (#12067)
  feat(api): add thermocycler plate lift to hardware controller (#12068)
  fix(app): reference moduleId from result not params (#12077)
  feat(app): create ODD protocol setup page (#12071)
  refactor(api): Deprecate presses and increment args when using PAPI pick_up_tip (#12079)
  fix(ot3): handle multiple responses for a tip action request (#12083)
  refactor(api): touch tip implementation for PAPIv2 engine core (#12053)
  refactor(app): Remove ssid parameter from OnDeviceRouteParams (#11930)
  fix(api): fix broken test in the api hardware controller (#12080)
  ...
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.

None yet

3 participants