Rename Qblox module classes

[PiergiorgioButtarini]

Qblox modules now have conventional names. Also I removed a deprecated test file.

Closes #742
Checklist:

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (92f35df) 62.45% compared to head (dfef079) 62.45%.
Report is 47 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/qibolab/instruments/qblox/controller.py	66.66%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #766   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.45%   62.45%           
=======================================
  Files          47       47           
  Lines        5867     5867           
=======================================
  Hits         3664     3664           
  Misses       2203     2203           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	62.45% <77.77%> (ø)

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.

[stavros11]

Thanks @PiergiorgioButtarini. I partly agree with the renames, particularly the removal of _. Maybe QrmRF would look better but no strong opinion from my side. Maybe we could also ask @aorgazf.

Other than that, could you please update the platforms in the other repo so that we can test?

[PiergiorgioButtarini]

Yes I also prefer QrmRF but I wanted to follow @alecandido suggestions. I think also Alvaro will prefer this notation.
Sure I will open a PR with the updated runcards

[alecandido]

As I said, there is some arbitrariness involved on which acronym you want to turn into words. You could consider a single acronym as a whole, and just use Qrmrf (to me, it's the ugliest).

Within my personal arbitrariness, I'd pick the current one. But the one suggested by you is also fine.

[PiergiorgioButtarini]

I opened the relative PR qiboteam/qibolab_platforms_qrc#107.

[stavros11]

Thanks. I believe the instruments are not available for testing, but given that it is just a rename, it should be easy to identify any bugs so could be fine to even merge.

Regarding the name, I just suggested capital RF because it is closer to literature, does not strongly violate the naming convention (for that I am not sure though) and it is also used in a couple of places, such as

qibolab/src/qibolab/instruments/rfsoc/driver.py

Line 35 in ebe6054

class RFSoC(Controller):

and in #661. But generally, excluding extremely bad choices (eg. class cluster_qcm_bb), I don't have strong opinion because no matter how intuitive we try to make names, most users will still need to look at the docs/code to know what to import.

[alecandido]

does not strongly violate the naming convention (for that I am not sure though)

Indeed, as I said above, acronyms involve a certain degree of arbitrariness

But generally, excluding extremely bad choices (eg. class cluster_qcm_bb), I don't have strong opinion because no matter how intuitive we try to make names, most users will still need to look at the docs/code to know what to import.

For sure.

I would avoid even the current one, because still wrong (because of the _) even if mildly wrong. For the rest is a matter of taste, I will leave the choice to @PiergiorgioButtarini :)

[stavros11]

Instruments are now working and QPU tests are passing, so we can probably merge this if the names are final.

[alecandido]

I agree with @stavros11, this could be merged. It's a relatively small (and primarily internal) change, that has been already propagated consistently.