Hardcode missing names in QPY backwards-compat tests #11015
Merged
+6
−4
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The newest control-flow QPY tests do not have hard-coded names on the outer circuits, which trips assertion errors if the library import causes any more circuits to be instantiated during build (since the generated names are circuit-count dependent). Inner circuits do not need naming in the same way, since these are not used in the assertion; nested circuits' names would be tested separately. The control-flow builder interface, for example, does not assign these circuits names at all.
|
One or more of the the following people are requested to review this:
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 6507182825
💛 - Coveralls |
mtreinish
approved these changes
Oct 13, 2023
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2023
The newest control-flow QPY tests do not have hard-coded names on the outer circuits, which trips assertion errors if the library import causes any more circuits to be instantiated during build (since the generated names are circuit-count dependent). Inner circuits do not need naming in the same way, since these are not used in the assertion; nested circuits' names would be tested separately. The control-flow builder interface, for example, does not assign these circuits names at all. (cherry picked from commit a1927bd)
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2023
The newest control-flow QPY tests do not have hard-coded names on the outer circuits, which trips assertion errors if the library import causes any more circuits to be instantiated during build (since the generated names are circuit-count dependent). Inner circuits do not need naming in the same way, since these are not used in the assertion; nested circuits' names would be tested separately. The control-flow builder interface, for example, does not assign these circuits names at all. (cherry picked from commit a1927bd) Co-authored-by: Jake Lishman <jake.lishman@ibm.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
The newest control-flow QPY tests do not have hard-coded names on the outer circuits, which trips assertion errors if the library import causes any more circuits to be instantiated during build (since the generated names are circuit-count dependent).
Inner circuits do not need naming in the same way, since these are not used in the assertion; nested circuits' names would be tested separately. The control-flow builder interface, for example, does not assign these circuits names at all.
Summary
Details and comments