fix(api,shared-data): Correct addressable area positions

[SyntaxColoring]

Overview

This closes RSS-408.

Test Plan

• 8-Channel drops tips in a waste chute in the right place
• 1-Channel drops tips in a waste chute in the right place
• 96-Channel drops tips in a waste chute in the right place
• Gripper drops labware in the waste chute in the right place
• All pipettes drop tips in movable trash in the right place
• The gripper and all pipettes safely clear the rim of the waste chute

I've used these protocols to test: Addressable area tests.zip

I only have an old waste chute to test with, so I couldn't directly test the y-position for 1- and 8-channel tip drops. (I cannot use the new waste chute cover.) So I held up the cover while the protocol was paused and eyeballed it.

Changelog

• Update the positions of all waste chute addressable areas to match the new hardware, which has a lower cover with a different hole position.
• ⚠️ Breaking: Correct the positioning of the 1-channel pipette by splitting the 1and8ChannelWasteChute addressable area into 1ChannelWasteChute and 8ChannelWasteChute.
  • This is necessary because we want the drop-tip position to be same for their rear channels, not their centers.
  • This will cause our demo JSON protocols to fail with an "unknown addressable area" error. Python protocols will be fine.
  • The JavaScript half of this is done in feat(app, shared-data, step-generation): split 1and8ChannelWasteChute addressable area #14109.
• Fix a Python Protocol API bug that had the 8-channel and 96-channel positions swapped with each other.
• Refactor the deck definition to remove some redundant, unused, and confusing fields.
  • Delete dropTipsOffset from the addressable area definitions. This was unused.
  • Delete dropLabwareOffset from the addressable area definitions. This was used by Protocol Engine.
  • To replace both of those, move the addressable area offsetFromCutoutFixtures and boundingBoxes so the bounding box's top-center is at the expected interaction point.
    • For motion planning, this was not safe to do before, but it is now that feat(shared-data,protocol-engine): Use the tallest fixture, not the tallest addressable area, for motion planning #14082 has merged.
    • For display in the Opentrons App, this is safe because it's only looking at these positions for deck slots, which are not affected here. Only the waste chute and trash bins are affected.

Review requests

None in particular.

Risk assessment

Medium. This affects motion planning, so we need to manually test a bunch of pipette positions and make sure there are no collisions.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #14100 (dfbd88c) into chore_release-7.1.0 (134f0b2) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                   Coverage Diff                   @@
##           chore_release-7.1.0   #14100      +/-   ##
=======================================================
- Coverage                70.46%   70.46%   -0.01%     
=======================================================
  Files                     2512     2512              
  Lines                    71185    71183       -2     
  Branches                  8957     8957              
=======================================================
- Hits                     50158    50156       -2     
  Misses                   18836    18836              
  Partials                  2191     2191              

Flag	Coverage Δ
app	67.63% <ø> (ø)
g-code-testing	96.44% <ø> (ø)
notify-server	89.13% <ø> (ø)
protocol-designer	44.99% <ø> (ø)
shared-data	75.01% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
step-generation	86.84% <ø> (ø)

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

Files	Coverage Δ
...pi/src/opentrons/protocol_engine/state/geometry.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
api/src/opentrons/protocol_engine/types.py	97.50% <ø> (ø)
...ata/python/opentrons_shared_data/deck/dev_types.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)

[jerader]

thank you! This makes sense to me. I tested uploading a JSON file where i manually changed the 1and8ChannelWasteChute addressable area name to 1ChannelWasteChute and it passed analysis 🥳

[sanni-t]

Reviewed in person. I'll go through the calculations thoroughly for my understanding later but the logic makes sense and looks good to merge!