Y25-422 - Ultima wafer table #841
Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #841 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 97.91% 98.00% +0.08%
===========================================
Files 76 78 +2
Lines 1680 1755 +75
===========================================
+ Hits 1645 1720 +75
Misses 35 35
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| t.datetime "otr_oil_expiry", precision: nil, comment: "Opentron oil expiry date" | ||
| t.string "otr_pipette_carousel", comment: "Opentron pipette carousel identifier" | ||
| t.string "otr_instrument_name", null: false, comment: "Opentron instrument name" | ||
| t.string "amp_assign_control_bead_tube", comment: "AMP assign control bead tube barcode" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @BenTopping — I just realized that even when we mark some descriptors as required in SS, there’s no actual validation or check behind it. Essentially, a user can release a batch without filling in those required fields.
My concern is that if validation fails at the MLWH, the message will end up in the dead-letter queue silently. I’m not sure if it would be better to remove the NOT NULL constraints for the descriptor fields in this case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh interesting..
Yes I can remove the validation for the time being.
…into Y25-422-ultima-seq-table
Closes #840
Changes proposed in this pull request
TODO