fix(app): fix deck setup rendering issue

[koji]

Overview

fix deck setup rendering issue.

the issue is that getOffDeckRenderInfo just checks definition and the app is failing to recognize liquids correctly.
create a new function to recognize the diff if the labwares are the same.
the ticket only pointed out the app but actually there is the same issue on the touchscreen app.
at this moment getOffDeckRenderGroups is used by desktop app and touchscreen app so keep it in app would be fine.

close AUTH-2661

Test Plan and Hands on Testing

• open the app

• import the protocol that is attached to the ticket

• set up the protocol

• go to labware & liquids
  check there are two reservoirs and each of them has its own liquid.

• send the protocol to a Flex

• set up the protocol

• go to labware & liquids
  check there are two reservoirs and each of them has its own liquid.

Changelog

• add getOffDeckRenderGroups and use it in desktop app and touchscreen app

Review requests

Risk assessment

low since this pr creates a new function and switch from getOffDeckRenderInfo to getOffDeckRenderGroups

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.63636% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 57.23%. Comparing base (b609ed9) to head (c5f1897).
⚠️ Report is 45 commits behind head on edge.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ices/ProtocolRun/SetupLabware/SetupLabwareList.tsx	56.25%	7 Missing ⚠️
...es/ProtocolRun/SetupLabware/OffDeckLabwareList.tsx	50.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...vices/ProtocolRun/SetupLabware/SetupLabwareMap.tsx	81.25%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...s/ODD/ProtocolSetup/ProtocolSetupLabware/index.tsx	75.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...esources/protocols/utils/getOffDeckRenderGroups.ts	98.27%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge   #21194      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   57.37%   57.23%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files        3922     3930       +8     
  Lines      321782   323056    +1274     
  Branches    46366    46456      +90     
==========================================
+ Hits       184630   184895     +265     
- Misses     136929   137938    +1009     
  Partials      223      223              

Flag	Coverage Δ
app	45.01% <83.63%> (-0.14%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...esources/protocols/utils/getOffDeckRenderGroups.ts	98.27% <98.27%> (ø)
...vices/ProtocolRun/SetupLabware/SetupLabwareMap.tsx	27.77% <81.25%> (+3.23%)	⬆️
...s/ODD/ProtocolSetup/ProtocolSetupLabware/index.tsx	73.84% <75.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
...es/ProtocolRun/SetupLabware/OffDeckLabwareList.tsx	80.48% <50.00%> (-6.70%)	⬇️
...ices/ProtocolRun/SetupLabware/SetupLabwareList.tsx	62.06% <56.25%> (-0.07%)	⬇️

... and 76 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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.

[sfoster1]

I get what this is doing but I think it doesn't go far enough. I think we should never group up multiple of the same labware that have liquid, because we don't have the UI to say "here's this group of labware with the same liquid", just "here's this group of labware".

I think with this PR, if you had a protocol that had 2x off deck tipracks; 2x off deck reservoirs with empty wells; 2x off deck reservoirs with well fill B; 1x off deck reservoir with well fill C; and 1x off deck reservoir with well fill D; you would get 5 entries in the off deck list, with the 2x tipracks gathered together, 2x empty reservoirs gathered together, 2x B reservoirs gathered together. This is better than getting the 2 entries you'd get today, but I think even better would be having 6 entries, where the 2 off deck reservoirs with well fill B are split out into separate entries.

[sfoster1]

I think that we want this to be matchingLabwareIndex !== -1 || wellFillSignature !== JSON.stringify([]) (or however an empty well fill signature looks). More about the reasons in the overall comment