This PR was requested on the PR
#19141

Co-authored-by: ryanthecoder <[email protected]>

…tocol. (#19141)

<!--
Thanks for taking the time to open a Pull Request (PR)! Please make sure
you've read the "Opening Pull Requests" section of our Contributing
Guide:


https://github.com/Opentrons/opentrons/blob/edge/CONTRIBUTING.md#opening-pull-requests

GitHub provides robust markdown to format your PR. Links, diagrams,
pictures, and videos along with text formatting make it possible to
create a rich and informative PR. For more information on GitHub
markdown, see:


https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax

To ensure your code is reviewed quickly and thoroughly, please fill out
the sections below to the best of your ability!
-->

# Overview
This finalizes the QC upgrade to a protocol, it also adjusts some of the
liquid class values so that they match the ones from the previous
production script.

<!--
Describe your PR at a high level. State acceptance criteria and how this
PR fits into other work. Link issues, PRs, and other relevant resources.
-->

## Test Plan and Hands on Testing

<!--
Describe your testing of the PR. Emphasize testing not reflected in the
code. Attach protocols, logs, screenshots and any other assets that
support your testing.
-->

## Changelog

<!--
List changes introduced by this PR considering future developers and the
end user. Give careful thought and clear documentation to breaking
changes.
-->

## Review requests

<!--
- What do you need from reviewers to feel confident this PR is ready to
merge?
- Ask questions.
-->

## Risk assessment

<!--
- Indicate the level of attention this PR needs.
- Provide context to guide reviewers.
- Discuss trade-offs, coupling, and side effects.
- Look for the possibility, even if you think it's small, that your
change may affect some other part of the system.
- For instance, changing return tip behavior may also change the
behavior of labware calibration.
- How do your unit tests and on hands on testing mitigate this PR's
risks and the risk of future regressions?
- Especially in high risk PRs, explain how you know your testing is
enough.
-->

---------

Co-authored-by: wweiye <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: ryanthecoder <[email protected]>

These are good changes that are correct, but they are significant
behavior changes that must be separated by a new liquid class version.
They cannot retroactively change the V1 liquid class.

This was generated by running `git checkout
679ccd8 -- shared-data/liquid-class/`
which should give us the liquid classes as of
679ccd8
, the final commit before the problematic one.

The rest of #19141 is
unchanged.

---------

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: sfoster1 <[email protected]>

# Overview

Now that we have versioning support in `get_liquid_class()` (PR #19408),
this PR takes the updated liquid class values for `water` (PR #19141)
and makes them available as version 2 of the `water` class. AUTH-2246

This PR also makes the preliminary values for the low-volume 96
`flex_96channel_200` pipette available in `water` v2, so that they can
be used by hardware testing. If we decide that we don't want to release
`flex_96channel_200` in the public RS 8.6.1 release, we'll delete the
`flex_96channel_200` values again.

And this fixes the `test_gravimetric_protocol.py` test to stop failing.
It's been failing since PR #19306 when we deleted the
`flex_96channel_200` liquid class values from RS 8.6.0.

## Test Plan and Hands on Testing

Ran the updated `test_gravimetric_protocol.py` and confirmed that it
passes.

Confirmed that `test_protocol_core.py` still passes.

## Risk assessment

Low. But remember to remove the `flex_96channel_200` values from `water`
v2 if we don't want to release them.