Executor context manager

[alecandido]

This is more or less complete as it is.

I will test, but it is already doing little to nothing.

Since this was originally an idea by @andrea-pasquale, I'd say it is ready for your review in the first place, and I'd like to collect your feedback.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.11765% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.46%. Comparing base (b1079b1) to head (970776b).

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/qibocal/auto/execute.py	94.11%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #949      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.46%   97.46%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         120      120              
  Lines        9477     9494      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits         9237     9253      +16     
- Misses        240      241       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.46% <94.11%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
src/qibocal/auto/execute.py	97.67% <94.11%> (-0.54%)	⬇️

[andrea-pasquale]

Thanks @alecandido, LGTM.
I will test it shortly.
There is one thing still to be addressed after #942:
#942 (comment).
I think that we should expose also the update attribute. If we don't it will be set to True and all checks that we are performing in https://github.com/qiboteam/qibocal/blob/exec-ctx-manager/runcards/rx_calibration.py to assess when to update the platform don't make much sense. Let me know what you think.

[alecandido]

There is one thing still to be addressed after #942:
#942 (comment).

Sorry, I've been too fast to merge that. But they are all additions, I will provide them here.

[andrea-pasquale]

Thanks @alecandido, works for me. Just a tiny comment.

[alecandido]

Ok, tests are definitely not extensive, and they should be improved.

However, the feature is there, and minimally tested. Since there are already other PRs relying on this, let's merge as soon as @Jacfomg confirms it is fine :)