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

Failing RemoveImplicitQubitPermutation proptest #753

Closed
aborgna-q opened this issue Jan 30, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Failing RemoveImplicitQubitPermutation proptest #753

aborgna-q opened this issue Jan 30, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working wontfix This will not be worked on

Comments

@aborgna-q
Copy link
Contributor

A CI job failed when testing the RemoveImplicitQubitPermutation pass (link)

I wasn't able to reproduce the error test locally using the RC_PARAMS.

Output:

conan create --profile=tket recipes/tket-proptests --build=missing --build=tket-proptests
(...)

- n_qubits is correct
OK, passed 100 tests

- preconditions and postconditions of passes are correct
Falsifiable after 83 tests and 5 shrinks

std::tuple<tket::Circuit, std::shared_ptr<tket::BasePass>>:
(Collapse q[0];
Phase(0.5);
Phase(0);
Tdg q[0];
Ry(1) q[0];
NPhasedX(0, 1.25) q[0];
Ry(0) q[0];
U2(0, 0) q[0];
Collapse q[0];
SX q[0];
X q[0];
Rx(1) q[0];
Phase (in half-turns): 0.0
, <???> (00000[18](https://github.com/CQCL/tket/actions/runs/4042509897/jobs/6950304167#step:18:19)6E0F117F0))

no exceptions thrown

Log:

Circuit (1 qubits, 12 gates): Collapse q[0];
Phase(0.5);
Phase(0);
Tdg q[0];
Ry(1) q[0];
NPhasedX(0, 1.[25](https://github.com/CQCL/tket/actions/runs/4042509897/jobs/6950304167#step:18:26)) q[0];
Ry(0) q[0];
U2(0, 0) q[0];
Collapse q[0];
SX q[0];
X q[0];
Rx(1) q[0];
Phase (in half-turns): 0.0

Pass: RemoveImplicitQubitPermutation

New circuit(1 qubits, 12 gates): Collapse q[0];
Phase(0.5);
Phase(0);
Tdg q[0];
Ry(1) q[0];
NPhasedX(0, 1.25) q[0];
Ry(0) q[0];
U2(0, 0) q[0];
Collapse q[0];
SX q[0];
X q[0];
Rx(1) q[0];
Phase (in half-turns): 0.0


Some of your RapidCheck properties had failures. To reproduce these, run with:
RC_PARAMS="reproduce=BYDcyV2Yv5GZpRXav52cgEmbkBCcvNHdj9mbklGdp9mbzBybmBCchN3clNHIhJXZgM2byJXZjRHgTZSn_kSxQPb8bRJdd1XoimurMEkZ+qztN1AskRik5AIgQAwESBAAAUwCBQAACA"
@aborgna-q aborgna-q added the bug Something isn't working label Jan 30, 2023
@aborgna-q
Copy link
Contributor Author

The "no exceptions thrown" message in the output should normally indicate that the pass was successful. There is an open issue in emil-e/rapidcheck#287 with the same problem, but there is no answer as to the cause of it.

I haven't been able to reproduce this specific error, and a proptest run of 100k tests (vs 100 in CI) did not find anything.
I'm closing this bug as unreproducible.

@aborgna-q aborgna-q added the wontfix This will not be worked on label Jan 31, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working wontfix This will not be worked on
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant