Update gate dictionary in two_local.py

[amaloney]

• I have added the tests to cover my changes.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.

Summary

This commit removes the hard coded gate dictionary with the one generated by the method get_standard_gate_name_mapping.

Details and comments

Resolves #12002

[qiskit-bot]

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 the following people are requested to review this:

• @Cryoris
• @Qiskit/terra-core
• @ajavadia

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8727412052

Details

• 3 of 3 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 5 unchanged lines in 2 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.002%) to 89.287%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
crates/qasm2/src/expr.rs	1	94.03%
crates/qasm2/src/lex.rs	4	92.37%

Totals
Change from base Build 8709275991:	0.002%
Covered Lines:	60369
Relevant Lines:	67612

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jakelishman]

This looks great, thanks! Please could you add a bugfix or features_circuit note (whichever you think is more appropriate) just to comment that all of the standard-library gates are now supported as valid string gates?

[amaloney]

rebased against main as well as added a release note

[jakelishman]

Thanks for this! Sorry I dropped the re-review for quite a while there.

[jakelishman]

Just to explain - I pushed up a tweak to the release note since I think this is either a feature or a bugfix but not both (I went "feature", since that seemed to be the way you'd gone preferentially as well) and to add a couple of additional Sphinx cross-references to it. Don't worry at all about that - we very frequently tweak release notes at the point of publishing a release anyway, just to make the "voice" a bit more consistent.

I also threw in a test case for the request in the issue you solved - it was my mistake I didn't think about that before, and I didn't want to send you off on another round when I already was super slow coming back to the review.

Thanks very much for the contribution!