Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 21 commits into from
Feb 7, 2024

Conversation

GabrielePalazzo
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist:

  • Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
  • Tests are passing.
  • Coverage does not decrease.
  • Documentation is updated.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (8dc5c5d) 62.58% compared to head (ceaec95) 62.46%.
Report is 254 commits behind head on main.

Files Patch % Lines
src/qibolab/instruments/zhinst.py 78.57% 9 Missing ⚠️
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     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 62.46% <78.57%> (-0.12%) ⬇️

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.

@GabrielePalazzo GabrielePalazzo marked this pull request as ready for review January 18, 2024 07:28
@@ -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?
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Contributor

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.

@Jacfomg
Copy link
Contributor

Jacfomg commented Feb 6, 2024

@GabrielePalazzo I was trying it for the resonator flux dependence and the data was different from the expected.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 6, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (13bdcb4) 64.03% compared to head (de9e2f9) 63.89%.

Files Patch % Lines
src/qibolab/instruments/zhinst.py 78.57% 9 Missing ⚠️
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     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 63.89% <78.57%> (-0.14%) ⬇️

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@Jacfomg Jacfomg left a 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

@GabrielePalazzo GabrielePalazzo merged commit 2d48d2a into main Feb 7, 2024
22 checks passed
@GabrielePalazzo GabrielePalazzo deleted the zh_bias_sweep branch February 7, 2024 06:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants