Qhc 736 bug wrong array output for qbloxresult from qprogram

[jjmartinezQT]

This PR reshapes QBlox acquisitions so they are standard with other vendors acquisitions when having nested loops, i.e.:

outer_loop = 51
inner_loop = 11

old_acquisitions.shape(561, 2)
new_acquisitions.shape(51, 11, 2)

[linear]

QHC-736 [BUG] Wrong `array` output for `QBloxResult` from `qprogram` execution

[pullpo-for-slack]

🔗Pullpo.io Slack channel

[pullpo-for-slack]

AI Analysis

Review:

The code changes in qblox_qrm.py and qblox_measurement_result.py to add a new 'shape' attribute seem consistent and useful for reshaping data. The fix for the typo in qblox_qrm.py is straightforward and improves code readability. The changes in qblox_compiler.py to calculate and store the shape of acquisition data appear well-implemented and enhance the functionality of the class.

Detailed file changes

(dropdown):

In qblox_qrm.py:

• Fixed a typo in a variable name from 'acquistion' to 'acquisition'.
• Updated the logic to save ADC data based on the corrected 'acquisition_data' variable.
• Added a new attribute 'shape' to the QbloxMeasurementResult class.

In qblox_compiler.py:

• Added a new attribute 'shape' to the AcquisitionData class.
• Calculated and stored the shape of the acquisition data based on loop iterations.
• Updated the logic to store the shape attribute when handling an 'acquire' element.

In qblox_measurement_result.py:

• Added a new attribute 'shape' to the QbloxMeasurementResult class.
• Updated the 'array' property to reshape the data based on the stored shape attribute.

[github-actions]

Hello. You may have forgotten to update the changelog!
Please edit changelog-dev.md with:

• A one-to-two sentence description of the change. You may include a small working example for new features.
• A link back to this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.67%. Comparing base (6d040c0) to head (1fb3077).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #853   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.67%   96.67%           
=======================================
  Files         221      221           
  Lines        7729     7739   +10     
=======================================
+ Hits         7472     7482   +10     
  Misses        257      257           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.67% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[fedonman]

Left some comments.

[fedonman]

Another remark: Take note that QuantumMachines in case there is 1 loop let's say 10 iterations, returns an array with shape (2, 1, 10) and not (2, 10)

[jjmartinezQT]

Another remark: Take note that QuantumMachines in case there is 1 loop let's say 10 iterations, returns an array with shape (2, 1, 10) and not (2, 10)

Then we should adopt this format right? So both results have the same one.

[fedonman]

Another remark: Take note that QuantumMachines in case there is 1 loop let's say 10 iterations, returns an array with shape (2, 1, 10) and not (2, 10)

Then we should adopt this format right? So both results have the same one.

Yes, we should have the same shapes for both vendors.

[jjmartinezQT]

Another remark: Take note that QuantumMachines in case there is 1 loop let's say 10 iterations, returns an array with shape (2, 1, 10) and not (2, 10)

Then we should adopt this format right? So both results have the same one.

Yes, we should have the same shapes for both vendors.

Cool, I will re-adapt QBlox then, thanks.

[fedonman]

Another remark: Take note that QuantumMachines in case there is 1 loop let's say 10 iterations, returns an array with shape (2, 1, 10) and not (2, 10)

Then we should adopt this format right? So both results have the same one.

Yes, we should have the same shapes for both vendors.

Cool, I will re-adapt QBlox then, thanks.

I double checked and is the same as you have it now. sorry for the confusion

[fedonman]

Another remark: Take note that QuantumMachines in case there is 1 loop let's say 10 iterations, returns an array with shape (2, 1, 10) and not (2, 10)

Then we should adopt this format right? So both results have the same one.

Yes, we should have the same shapes for both vendors.

Cool, I will re-adapt QBlox then, thanks.

I double checked and is the same as you have it now. sorry for the confusion

So (2, N) for one loop, (2, M, N) for nested loop etc.

[jjmartinezQT]

Another remark: Take note that QuantumMachines in case there is 1 loop let's say 10 iterations, returns an array with shape (2, 1, 10) and not (2, 10)

Then we should adopt this format right? So both results have the same one.

Yes, we should have the same shapes for both vendors.

Cool, I will re-adapt QBlox then, thanks.

I double checked and is the same as you have it now. sorry for the confusion

So (2, N) for one loop, (2, M, N) for nested loop etc.

Music to my ears then! Will fix the unittest failing then.

[jjmartinezQT]

This might need to wait until January to be merged as I really want to test it on real hardware before merging, and we will be warming up on Friday and need to give Adrián some measurement room before then.