Skip to content

Conversation

@ddddddanni
Copy link
Collaborator

@ddddddanni ddddddanni commented Dec 12, 2025

There is an inconsistency on qubits measurements in readout circuits and measurement circuits. The measurement circuits always measure the full circuit set of qubits, while the qubits being measured in readout/calibration circuits are based only on the qubits present in the Pauli strings.
In this PR, I have updated the circuit generation to only measure the qubits relevant to the Pauli group being processed.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the size: M 50< lines changed <250 label Dec 12, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 12, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.56%. Comparing base (6871bdb) to head (2483167).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7801      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.57%   99.56%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1102     1102              
  Lines       98638    98638              
==========================================
- Hits        98218    98213       -5     
- Misses        420      425       +5     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@github-actions github-actions bot added size: S 10< lines changed <50 and removed size: M 50< lines changed <250 labels Dec 12, 2025
@ddddddanni
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@eliottrosenberg Can you take a look at this? Thank!

Copy link
Collaborator

@eliottrosenberg eliottrosenberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Thanks, @ddddddanni!

@ddddddanni ddddddanni marked this pull request as ready for review December 16, 2025 04:19
@ddddddanni ddddddanni requested review from a team and vtomole as code owners December 16, 2025 04:19
@ddddddanni ddddddanni requested a review from fdmalone December 16, 2025 04:19
Copy link
Collaborator

@NoureldinYosri NoureldinYosri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please add a test

@ddddddanni ddddddanni added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 16, 2025
@NoureldinYosri NoureldinYosri removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request Dec 16, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@pavoljuhas pavoljuhas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please add a test that will fail before and pass after this PR?

Also, looking at the code we can avoid some complicated casting by using a separate variable for the sweep vs no-sweep cases. Please see this patch - pr7801-with-less-casting.patch.txt (can be applied with git apply PATCH_FILE).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

size: S 10< lines changed <50

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants