Skip to content
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

🩹 import statements mqt.bench.utils #170

Conversation

flowerthrower
Copy link
Collaborator

Couldn't find modules qiskit_helper and tket_helper under mqt.bench.utils.
They were probably moved since February.

Also I want to use this commit to create a first PR (dev guidelines stated to create (draft) PR early).

@burgholzer
Copy link
Member

Hey 👋🏼

many thanks! Just to double check: you intentionally targeted the PR at the unify-device-specification branch, right?
I am not 100% sure that this is the best route to go, as mqt-bench and mqt-predictor have undergone some pretty significant changes since that branch was created. As a result that branch is pretty outdated and might be hard to upgrade.

If I could recommend one thing, then it would be to create a new branch from the current main branch and just take the devices folder from the unify-device-specification branch. I would believe that it's easier to integrate that way. You can even cherry pick some of the changes from the unify-device-specification branch that still apply.

Small heads-up: it might turn out to be beneficial to do this integration of the device infrastructure in mqt-bench, which is a dependency of mqt-predictor and builds upon some of the functionality from there.
Happy to discuss potential options.

@flowerthrower
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thank you @burgholzer for the information. I intentionally worked only on this branch (my main goal was/is to get more familiar with the code and setup everything for development) - starting by looking into which checks fail and why.

Following on your advice however I will soon shift to integrating the new device infrastructure into mqt-bench and probably abandon this branch for now.

@burgholzer
Copy link
Member

I guess it's a bit better to learn to understand the current code base as compared to a 10 month old one ;o)
Good thinking though!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants