Qiskit
Add method to add instructions to a DAGCircuit from an iterator of PackedInstruction
Solves #13003
Summary
Tracked by #13001 and preceeded by #12975
The following commits aim to add a DAGCircuit::add_from_iter() to add a chain of DAGOpNodes to the DAGCircuit based on a sequence of PackedInstruction.
Details and comments
These commits add the following two methods:
DAGCircuit::add_from_iter()to add a sequence ofPackedInstructioncontinously avoiding having to re-add each bit/var's output node each time an instruction is added. The addition of the output node is only performed once all instructions have been added correctly to the DAGCircuit.
Known issues:
- At the moment, I'm still thinking of ways of handling vars correctly as we need to keep track of each bit/var's output node and vars are currently represented as
PyObjectwhich are not hashable.- ~~One possible solution would be to use a
PyDicthowever the structures that are being stored within this mapping are rust-native (NodeIndex,Wire)~~. - ~~Another solution would be to somehow internalize these structures, which I'm still thinking on how to do.~~
- ~~One possible solution would be to use a
- Feel free to comment with any ideas.
Blockers
- [ ] #12975 (will rebase once merged)
- [x] #12550
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10740673998
Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.
This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.
- For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
- To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
- For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.
Details
- 104 of 111 (93.69%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
- 106 unchanged lines in 10 files lost coverage.
- Overall coverage increased (+0.008%) to 89.155%
| Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates/circuit/src/dag_circuit.rs | 104 | 111 | 93.69% |
| <!-- | Total: | 104 | 111 |
| Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % |
|---|---|---|
| qiskit/transpiler/passes/optimization/split_2q_unitaries.py | 1 | 96.77% |
| qiskit/transpiler/passes/routing/stochastic_swap.py | 1 | 95.39% |
| crates/accelerate/src/synthesis/clifford/utils.rs | 1 | 78.06% |
| crates/circuit/src/dag_node.rs | 3 | 81.2% |
| crates/qasm2/src/lex.rs | 3 | 93.23% |
| crates/circuit/src/packed_instruction.rs | 11 | 93.08% |
| crates/circuit/src/circuit_instruction.rs | 12 | 82.93% |
| crates/circuit/src/operations.rs | 13 | 88.67% |
| crates/accelerate/src/results/marginalization.rs | 17 | 90.17% |
| crates/circuit/src/dag_circuit.rs | 44 | 88.92% |
| <!-- | Total: | 106 |
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build 10720509731: | 0.008% |
| Covered Lines: | 72737 |
| Relevant Lines: | 81585 |
💛 - Coveralls
One or more of the following people are relevant to this code:
@Qiskit/terra-core@kevinhartman@mtreinish
I believe that the PR doesn't have any open blocker. I will remove the on hold label. Let me know if I missed something.
I believe that the PR doesn't have any open blocker. I will remove the on hold label. Let me know if I missed something.
I was about to do that :) Thank you
I can give this a quick look as well if it's helpful (I see it is not in the merge queue yet)
IMO, this new method is sufficiently complex and should be unit tested. I'm not sure if we've decided on an approach to exercise the Rust-only API of our pyclasss. Perhaps @mtreinish has opinions / suggestions?
In general having rust unit tests is possible and we have them already in place where it is possible/makes sense for PRs like this with new rust specific functionality. See: https://github.com/Qiskit/qiskit/commit/86c63eb3d719a129dbcb92c56e9a67954030b803 for a recent example (which is already setup to run in CI: https://dev.azure.com/qiskit-ci/qiskit/_build/results?buildId=60452&view=logs&j=b9878877-bc64-52fc-fc03-577dd0aa7cb4&t=2cc4852e-f347-585e-188c-b93a0bf20b0f&l=363 ). But what we will struggle with here is that this new method takes a py token and we don't have a mechanism to interact with python via rust unit tests.
I would agree we should have this exercised somehow in an ideal world. But I think we probably are ok to let this slide if we can't come up with a solution for unit testing with a python dependency. Given that there are several PRs actively based on top of this and those are exercising the code and tested via Python AFAICT.
