-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
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
Sweeping offset values instead of flux pulses on Zurich #719
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #719 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 62.58% 62.46% -0.12%
==========================================
Files 48 48
Lines 6644 6658 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 4158 4159 +1
- Misses 2486 2499 +13
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Co-authored-by: Hayk Sargsyan <[email protected]>
@@ -1359,7 +1413,7 @@ def split_batches(self, sequences): | |||
def play_sim(self, qubits, sequence, options, sim_time): | |||
"""Play pulse sequence.""" | |||
|
|||
self.experiment_flow(qubits, sequence, options) | |||
self.experiment_flow(qubits, sequence, options) # missing couplers? |
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.
haha, does this call even work? :D I suppose no, since all necessary positional arguments are not passed to the function call.
Shall we remove this play_sim
method since it is apparently not used anywhere (otherwise we would know that it is broken), or shall we fix it? @Jacfomg perhaps you have an opinion?
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.
Yeah, the play_sim
stopped working some time ago and I didn't find the time or reasons to fix it. We could remove it and if we see the need of it we could reimplement it properly as if I remenber correctly it was basically passing the laboneq experiment object to a simulation function.
Co-authored-by: Hayk Sargsyan <[email protected]>
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Co-authored-by: Hayk Sargsyan <[email protected]>
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
@GabrielePalazzo I was trying it for the resonator flux dependence and the data was different from the expected. |
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #719 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 64.03% 63.89% -0.14%
==========================================
Files 49 49
Lines 5778 5792 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 3700 3701 +1
- Misses 2078 2091 +13
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Thanks @GabrielePalazzo and @hay-k, we have it working now
Checklist: