[gkalua]

updates plan to determine scan type based on enum choice passed from the UI frontend with accompanying tests.

The scope of this PR has simplified - changes:

• Both experiments start by calling demo_() explicitly with a scan_type enum.
• the same scan can now be run as step or fly
• tomography plans layout now mirrors spectroscopy plans

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

Existing callers remain incompatible, the step-scan assertion expects incorrect dimensions, and velocity validation ignores custom trajectories.

3 open findings

• Migrate tests to the new spectroscopy API · New
• Validate fly-scan velocity using the resolved trajectory · New
• Update default grid size assertion to [5, 5] · New

What changed in this PR

Updates spectroscopy scans to use an explicit scan-type enum supplied by the frontend instead of automatic mode selection.

Changes:

• Adds ScanType and requires it in the spectroscopy plan.
• Consolidates demo grid parameters into spectroscopy and adds fly-scan velocity validation.
• Adds system tests for explicit step and fly scans.

File	Description
tests/​system_tests/​test_plans_system.py	Adds explicit scan-mode system tests.
src/​test_rig_bluesky/​spectroscopy_plans.py	Consolidates plans and introduces enum-based scan selection.
src/​test_rig_bluesky/​plans.py	Defines the shared ScanType enum.

🧠 Review effort: Balanced

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[tomkane-dls]

I see what copilot is saying, We have moved the guard from demo_spectroscopy onto spectroscopy, but technically this guard assumes a square grid to calculate max velocity which isn't necessarily true if you called a different spec. So by adding this guard here we are not allowing legitimate fly scans to happen here, so i think we may need to make a more intelligent guard. I am not sure how likely we are to be calling scans not from the UI currently?

[tomkane-dls]

I think i would prefer the explicit, and still exhaustive
if scan_type == ScanType.STEP:
to be clear

[tomkane-dls]

For now I’d suggest we drop the hard velocity guard from spectroscopy and only log a warning. The current check assumes the square grid the UI builds, so it can wrongly reject a valid fly scan when a different spec is passed in. ophyd-async already enforces each motor’s VMAX when it builds the pmac trajectory during prepare, so an unsafe scan will still be refused. We can add a true velocity guard after building the actual scan spec later.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 44.00000% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 50.70%. Comparing base (ea87af1) to head (33713e9).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/test_rig_bluesky/tomography_plans.py	0.00%	13 Missing ⚠️
src/test_rig_bluesky/spectroscopy_plans.py	87.50%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #54      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   48.35%   50.70%   +2.34%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         213      213              
==========================================
+ Hits          103      108       +5     
+ Misses        110      105       -5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.