-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
Temporary GridDevice.qubits property #5593
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
CirqBot
merged 4 commits into
quantumlib:master
from
verult:cg-device-refactor/temporary-grid-device-qubits
Jun 24, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9164316
Temporary GridDevice.qubits property
verult 249d02f
Sort the qubit list; verify against the expected qubit list instead i…
verult 14ab21a
Ignoring mypy error around property not being supported (https://gith…
verult 00860d5
Merge branch 'master' into cg-device-refactor/temporary-grid-device-q…
CirqBot File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel like in most cases the quote-unquote "correct" migration would be to change the entire code-base to expect
DeviceMetadataobjects at API boundaries instead ofDevice. Unfortunately, this is a rather large and disruptive change that would have to be done throughout a codebase. What do you think @MichaelBroughton ?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a tricky one. The way I see it is any
cirq-corefeatures we make ought to make use ofcirq.Deviceor a subclass ofcirq.Devicethat is inside ofcirq-core. That way any reasonable vendor device could also be used with those features. Specific Vendors who implement their own device related functionality can then have their APIs expectcirq_<vendor>.VendorDevice(which is kind of what we do now with cirq_google.GridDevice and some of our placement routines likeanneal.py). I actually think passing around the devices themselves with their type distinctions is the right call vs the metadata objects which may or may not adhere to the same type distinction as devices. Plus it's not too hard to make a library method do a quick check like:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I imagine most of the code will look like
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to consider making it non-
Optional? My take is aDevicewithout qubit information probably can't do muchThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@MichaelBroughton
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Chatted with @MichaelBroughton offline - not all devices have a well-defined qubit set and connectivity graph so the consensus during the design phase was to leave it optional.