feat(api): implement mix() parameters aspirate_delay and dispense_delay

[ddcc4]

Overview

In PD, you can specify a delay after each aspirate and dispense in a Mix step. There is no way to specify a delay in the PAPI mix() call, which means that we can't translate a PD Mix step into a PAPI mix() call.

This PR introduces the parameters aspirate_delay and dispense_delay to the InstrumentContext.mix() function. The new parameters are gated to API version 2.24 and above. AUTH-1366

Test Plan and Hands on Testing

I added tests to demonstrate that this implementation emits the correct calls to delay() when the caller requests a delay in the mix().

This is what the output looks like in simulate:

Mixing 2 times with a volume of 20.0 ul
	Aspirating 20.0 uL from C2 of (Retired) Armadillo 96 Well Plate 200 µL PCR Full Skirt on slot A2 at 716.0 uL/sec
	Delaying for 0 minutes and 2.5 seconds
	Dispensing 20.0 uL into C2 of (Retired) Armadillo 96 Well Plate 200 µL PCR Full Skirt on slot A2 at 716.0 uL/sec
	...

Review requests

InstrumentContext.mix() calls InstrumentContext.aspirate() and InstrumentContext.dispense() to implement the mix, which is nice because the public aspirate() and dispense() functions handle things like publishing messages for the simulator.

Ideally, we would also call the public delay() function for the delay. But the delay() function is in ProtocolContext, and InstrumentContext doesn't have access to that. We only have access to the ProtocolCore, so we have to publish messages to the simulator manually.

I ended up refactoring the code of mix() a bit because it was going to get too repetitive and nested with the delays and publish_context() messages added.

Risk assessment

Should be low. The new parameters are version-gated. The main risk is that we release this, and then decide that we don't want to change the public API this way.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 24.44%. Comparing base (31448fc) to head (460f249).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             edge   #18000   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   24.44%   24.44%           
=======================================
  Files        2956     2956           
  Lines      228425   228425           
  Branches    19032    19032           
=======================================
  Hits        55843    55843           
  Misses     172570   172570           
  Partials       12       12           

Flag	Coverage Δ
protocol-designer	18.79% <ø> (ø)
step-generation	4.42% <ø> (ø)

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[jerader]

this is great, getting closer to always emitting python mix() when a mix step is added.

[ncdiehl11]

This is looking good! Thank you for the details about why we need to manually publish a message to the broker. Tested simulation and the output looks as expected (snipped below). Approving with the caveat that a robot server dev should put eyes on this :)

[ddcc4]

Tested simulation and the output looks as expected (snipped below).

Oh wow, thanks for testing it in the app!