Add a backend for IonQ. #391
Conversation
|
@Takishima Thanks for the review! I believe this is ready for another pass. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the latest changes and I am happy to merge the proposed changes.
I am just waiting on the confirmation that you have signed the ProjectQ license agreement (you should have gotten an email or will get it soon about the details of it). Once that is done I will merge the branch and prepare the release of a new version of ProjectQ as soon as possible.
Awesome! Thanks a lot! Looking forward to the release. 🎉 |
|
I have received confirmation that the CLA was signed a few days ago. I will merge this in the coming days and start the release process for the next version of ProjectQ shortly thereafter. |
🎉 Awesome! Thank you!
Sounds good! I'll keep an eye on that PR. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do until the merge. |
|
Hey @Takishima -- any updates on when we might be able to expect #395 to merge? Thanks! |
I wish I could give you a satisfactory answer, but I am currently waiting on @andreashehn to finish his review (although I know he has started looking at it). Unfortunately, he has been pretty busy with his work over the last few weeks. My hope is that by the end of this week or beginning of the next he should be able to find some time to finish his review and then I will be able to merge #395 and this PR. |
|
Thanks! I'll check back in early next week! |
|
Hey @Takishima, Checking in as promised. Any luck with #395? I see no movement so far so assuming not, but checking nonetheless. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, thanks for your contributions and patience with me in this process that is taking way longer than I would like.
One of your latest changes has triggered some warning bells on my side (see comment in the code) and I would be happy to discuss this more. I made one suggestion but if you think you have a better way of solving the issue, I am open to discussing this here.
No unfortunately not. I am gently reminding him every week without success so far, but I am sure that once things settle down a little for him at work he will submit his review. |
|
@Takishima thanks again for the nudge in the right direction with this qubit mapper. I am WAY happier with how this looks/feels now. Please let me know what still needs work! |
|
So, #395 just landed and it is probably going to require a few modifications to your code, though I do not expect anything too major. You might want to rebase you branch onto the new develop and force-push it to update this PR. |
Thanks! I'll work on this starting today. |
Thanks for the correction! Co-authored-by: Nguyen Damien <ngn.damien@gmail.com>
* Fix some bad logic with result probability mappings. * Fix some erroneous test cases. * Fix example code. * Ensure qubits are "deallocated" and reset after job submit. * Drop dependency on mappers in favor of API response mappings. * Add better error handling for API/http errors. * Fix tests.
* Use a dedicated qubit mapper instead of bashing self.main_engine. * Update backend, add tests, to reflect new mapper.
|
@Takishima This should be updated now. That said, I did run into some issues with One other thing I decided to push here too-- making sure that ProjectQ qubit IDs are actually used when setting Qubit object result values from our API response. |
|
I am happy to merge this if you are happy with it too ;-) |
Let's rock and roll!! Thanks for your patience and attention on this! |
Thank you for taking the time to adjust and tweak your code along the way. I will merge this later tonight and then probably release a new version of ProjectQ by the end of the week. |
Sounds great. Please let me know what I can do to help, if anything. |
Hello ProjectQ!
Here is a first pass at a direct IonQ backend. Welcoming all feedback!