Given that PyLabRobot supports multiple instruments, I was wondering if the there were drastic differences in the ability to control the hardware? Specifically regarding OpenTrons and Hamilton Star.
the universal layer (LiquidHandler and such) expose what is reasonably expected to be supported by any liquid handler. For more specialized control, it is possible to talk directly to the backend. When talking to the backend your code is obviously gonna be more machine-specific, and we canât promise it will run on other machines. So itâs a trade-off that the user can make: maximum control or maximum interoperability?
Between backends, the Hamilton STAR backend has been used the most and I therefore the most expansive/stable.
The OT backend has some unique quirks. The reason is that when i first created the ot integration, their api required mirroring the deck layout to their machine (theirs is way less flexible than PLRâs). Recently they made added âaspirate/dispense at xyzâ commands whereas in the past it was âaspirate at labware Xâ. I think updating PLR to use this new api (meaning we can fully rely on our own deck model) will take maybe 1-2 days. At that point PLR will be more powerful than the oem api
4 Likes