Remove code due to be removed in v0.28 #3281
Merged
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3281 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 99.70% 99.70% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 299 298 -1
Lines 26214 26142 -72
==========================================
- Hits 26136 26064 -72
Misses 78 78
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
albi3ro
added
the
review-ready 👌
Co-authored-by: Matthew Silverman <matthews@xanadu.ai>
albi3ro
commented
Nov 16, 2022
timmysilv
approved these changes
Nov 17, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two notes for consistency but otherwise lgtm!
- Two of the pending deprecations say "Will be removed in v0.28" - are we sure we'll get to them? Otherwise it will clash with the completed deprecations that say "Removed in v0.28". Not sure what I'm asking for here. Stories to track them? Optimistically change the language now? A calendar reminder to ensure it's updated pre-release? Nothing is also acceptable, just making sure it's pointed out.
- The newly completed deprecations have the first line saying "Still accessible in vX.Y", while the previously existing ones say "Deprecated in vX.Y". Can we make them the same? I'd prefer "Deprecated in".
|
For the grouping deprecation, let's make a separate PR for that @Jaybsoni . Since that will be a lot of deletions and clean up. I'm unsure whether we should actually remove Updated the language for "Completed deprecation cycles". |
timmysilv
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 23, 2024
This was originally added in #3182, but I only put the test in `test_tape.py`, so it was accidentally pruned in #3281 (anagram PR!) which isn't ideal. I'm putting it back in `test_queuing.py` where it truly belongs. I know this PR seems a bit insignificant, but I remember this bug coming up and I don't want it to resurface because of a lack of testing. Plus, the `finally` is much prettier than writing the cleanup code twice 😄 Not bothering with a changelog entry, but can add if we feel strongly about it
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.
A variety of code is due to be removed for the v0.28 release. See the deprecations page for the full list.
The list is:
qml.tape.get_active_tape: Useqml.QueuingManager.active_context()qml.transforms.qcut.remap_tape_wires: Useqml.map_wiresqml.tape.QuantumTape.inv(): Useqml.tape.QuantumTape.adjoint()qml.tape.stop_recording(): Useqml.QueuingManager.stop_recording()qml.tape.QuantumTape.stop_recording(): Useqml.QueuingManager.stop_recording()qml.QueuingContextis nowqml.QueuingManagerQueuingManager.safe_update_infoandAnnotatedQueue.safe_update_info: Use plainupdate_info