Remove folder argument from platform create

[stavros11]

Following the discussion in qiboteam/qibolab_platforms_qrc#108 (comment).

I believe some lines in qibo (and maybe also qibocal) need to be updated.

Checklist:

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

[andrea-pasquale]

Thanks @stavros11, indeed it is better update the documentation accordingly given that we dropped the folder argument in https://github.com/qiboteam/qibolab_platforms_qrc

[stavros11]

Thanks, the only issue is that doctest requires qibo to be updated, because qibo.set_backend is currently using the removed path argument.

[andrea-pasquale]

Thanks, the only issue is that doctest requires qibo to be updated, because qibo.set_backend is currently using the removed path argument.

Ahhh, too many repositories.

[andrea-pasquale]

Btw, shall we release qibolab now that the milestone is complete? @scarrazza @stavros11 @alecandido
I know that maybe some changes were not tested on hardware but I will be able to merge some PRs in qibocal as soon as we release qibolab.

[alecandido]

Btw, shall we release qibolab now that the milestone is complete? @scarrazza @stavros11 @alecandido I know that maybe some changes were not tested on hardware but I will be able to merge some PRs in qibocal as soon as we release qibolab.

Fine by me :)

[alecandido]

Just a couple of suggestions. Other than that, is perfectly fine.

[alecandido]

Suggested change

	FOLDER = Path.cwd()
	FOLDER = Path(__file__).absolute().parent

Since you never know in which directory is the person launching it.

[stavros11]

I also don't like this, because it's not what the user is supposed to use, but Path(__file__) was causing doctest to fail, I guess because it's not really a file.

https://github.com/qiboteam/qibolab/actions/runs/7669260031/job/20902792936

[alecandido]

Right after writing this, I realized that could be the reason...

I thought a while about that, but the only two proposals I have are:

• avoid testing or
• leave it as it is, but add a comment explaining

It's not great to see a comment for internal testing reasons, but you should do in this other way. But I would leave a simpler comment anyhow

Suggested change

	FOLDER = Path.cwd()
	FOLDER = Path.cwd() # Path(__file__).absolute().parent

at least the reader has a chance of understanding the difference.

[scarrazza]

@andrea-pasquale fine by me too.

[stavros11]

@andrea-pasquale @alecandido I updated qibo to 0.2.6. As soon as CI passes, I will merge this.

[alecandido]

@andrea-pasquale @alecandido I updated qibo to 0.2.6. As soon as CI passes, I will merge this.

 = 46 failed, 2198 passed, 104 skipped, 47 deselected, 3 xfailed, 3 xpassed, 5 warnings in 18.20s =

bad luck...

[stavros11]

@alecandido in 2603611 I dropped the default transpiler from QibolabBackend. This is a significant change because it will no longer be possible to run circuits that contain non-native gates out-of-the box, including through the openqasm, C and Rust APIs (btw I also pushed a fix for these tests but for some reason github doesn't show it).

The reason for dropping is that otherwise we are testing the transpiler in qibolab tests while the code is in qibo (which leads to the failures above). It is still possible to add a transpiler of choice manually:

backend = QibolabBackend("my_platform")
backend.transpiler = ... # my transpiler imported from qibo

or even better the user transpiles their circuit manually:

backend = QibolabBackend("my_platform")

circuit = Circuit(...)
...

native_circuit = my_transpiler(circuit)

result = backend.execute_circuit(native_circuit)

[stavros11]

After https://github.com/qiboteam/qibolab/actions/runs/8360122834/job/22885054536?pr=784 I think I should officially give up

Cannot install setuptools.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.90909% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 66.57%. Comparing base (535dcdb) to head (21369b5).

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/qibolab/backends.py	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #784   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.56%   66.57%           
=======================================
  Files          50       50           
  Lines        6063     6061    -2     
=======================================
- Hits         4036     4035    -1     
+ Misses       2027     2026    -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	66.57% <90.90%> (+<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.

[alecandido]

Yes, please, just merge.

All in all, Qibolab is the low-level layer, it is fine to require circuits to be transpiled by someone else (i.e. Qibo).