-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
TerminalLogicalMeasurement implementation #627
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
☂️ Python Coverage
Overall Coverage
New Files
Modified Files
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
david-pl
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Generally, the code looks good. Just some small comments throughout. Also:
- Please add a test.
- What's the plan for method table impls for the new statement? I suppose this should work with the simulator and similar things. Is there a follow-up issue?
weinbe58
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If @david-pl is OK with a breaking change I think we should probably go ahead and rename the groups but otherwise @johnzl-777 please roll that change back.
Overall it looks good I have no other changes to propose
|
@david-pl @johnzl-777 No, I'm fine with the breaking change. I was just wondering. |
|
@david-pl so if we have simulator support for this, does that mean under the hood we're keeping track of the physical qubits? (hope this isn't too silly a question) |
No simulator support for this dialect. It doesn't make sense here because you're converting from logical qubit to physical qubits. |
|
Trying to add a test to the validation, seems to be some obnoxious circular import thing going on. Will merge once I fix it (or request another review if it's a large change) |
|
@johnzl-777 I think that's fine. Consider it approved from my side, but I'm not sure whether @weinbe58 has any comments. |
|
@weinbe58 gave a thumbs up on the comment and hasn't revoked/changed his original approval so I think we're good (: |
|
@david-pl With the docstrings checking feature in our CI will it always fail until we get everything fixed? |
|
@johnzl-777 yes. I know, not ideal, but I've yet to figure out how to make it check changes only. FWIW, you can check your files with |
I believe the signature should be in line with what was requested in #609 but I went ahead and made a dedicated dialect for the additional statement.
I originally wanted to follow something like
native's structure which has its own version of the squinqubitdialect (same name but tucked away elsewhere) although I wasn't sure if this was something we wanted to mirror.