Fix extraction of controlled parametric gates (backport #13067) #13080
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![mergify[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/10562?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
The `mutable` check in the controlled-gate `OperationFromPython` extraction logic to check for a mutated `base_gate` was overzealous, and would return false positives for parametric controlled gates. The only modification to `base_gate` of a standard-library gate that would not have caused data-model problems from Python space would be setting the base-gate label, which is used for a public feature of the circuit visualisers. The change to `get_standard_gate_name_mapping` is just a minor convenience to make the gate objects directly appendable to a circuit; previously, each `Parameter` object was distinct and had a UUID clash with others of the same name, so could not be used together. The new behaviour is purely a convenience for tests; it largely should not be useful for users to directly append these gates. (cherry picked from commit 8f33084)
|
Thank you for opening a new pull request. Before your PR can be merged it will first need to pass continuous integration tests and be reviewed. Sometimes the review process can be slow, so please be patient. While you're waiting, please feel free to review other open PRs. While only a subset of people are authorized to approve pull requests for merging, everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. Doing reviews helps reduce the burden on the core team and helps make the project's code better for everyone. One or more of the following people are relevant to this code:
|
github-actions
bot
added
Changelog: Bugfix
jakelishman
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2024
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10685632838Details
💛 - Coveralls |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
The
mutablecheck in the controlled-gateOperationFromPythonextraction logic to check for a mutatedbase_gatewas overzealous, and would return false positives for parametric controlled gates. The only modification tobase_gateof a standard-library gate that would not have caused data-model problems from Python space would be setting the base-gate label, which is used for a public feature of the circuit visualisers.The change to
get_standard_gate_name_mappingis just a minor convenience to make the gate objects directly appendable to a circuit; previously, eachParameterobject was distinct and had a UUID clash with others of the same name, so could not be used together. The new behaviour is purely a convenience for tests; it largely should not be useful for users to directly append these gates.Details and comments
This is an automatic backport of pull request #13067 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).