Assert spec and layout target equality #687
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 #687 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 98.69% 98.69%
=======================================
Files 75 75
Lines 9198 9209 +11
=======================================
+ Hits 9078 9089 +11
Misses 120 120
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
josh146
approved these changes
Mar 9, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me @thisac! I suppose I have one question, though - is there anywhere in the logic where we are making use of the fact that different spec and different layout targets are allowed?
That is, do we have any existing cases where they might already differ?
Co-authored-by: Josh Izaac <josh146@gmail.com>
…ryfields into sc-15707-assert-target
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Context:
Currently, there's no check against using different targets in the specification (
Device.target, orDevice._spec["target"]) and in the Blackbird layout (target field inDevice.layout, orBlackbirdProgram.target). This shouldn't be an issue for the user unless the specification is incorrect, although it's safer to have a check for this at device creation directly.Description of the Change:
Device.assert_specstatic method is added which checks that the target in the layout is the same as the target field in the specification. This check is also performed atDeviceinitialization.CircuitErrorwould be raised.Benefits:
Possible Drawbacks:
None
Related GitHub Issues:
None