Delegate BasePass.__call__ to PassManager.run
#13820
Merged
+136
−62
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
This ensures that calling a pass directly will follow the same execution logic as a regular pass-manager construction. This particularly matters for passes that have `requires`. It also ensures that the conversion from a circuit and back to a DAG will follow the same rules, which is expected since it is a shorthand notation, but liable to get out of sync as they are complex.
jakelishman
added
Changelog: New Feature
|
One or more of the following people are relevant to this code:
|
jakelishman
commented
Feb 10, 2025
| perm = pass_.property_set["virtual_permutation_layout"].to_permutation(qc.qubits) | ||
| res.append(PermutationGate(perm), [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]) | ||
| res.append(PermutationGate(res.layout.routing_permutation()), [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PassManager.run explicitly clears out virtual_permutation_layout from a property_set after execution, since it updates the layout fields. This new version of the PermutationGate is more properly the behaviour we want to test, though.
|
Oh whoops, I forgot I hadn't fixed that test error locally. |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13687355258Details
💛 - Coveralls |
jakelishman
force-pushed
the
direct-pass-call
branch
from
06e1753 to
390fa85
Compare
mtreinish
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2025
| @@ -462,6 +472,9 @@ def _replace_error(meth): | |||
| def wrapper(*meth_args, **meth_kwargs): | |||
| try: | |||
| return meth(*meth_args, **meth_kwargs) | |||
| except TranspilerError: | |||
| # If it's already a `TranspilerError` subclass, don't erase the extra information. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I remember discussing this offline, but TranspilerError being a subclass of PassManagerError seems so weird. But it's hard to change this now so this makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume it was intended as a backwards-compatibility shim for a move to PassManagerError during the genericisation of PassManager, but I don't really know.
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
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.
This ensures that calling a pass directly will follow the same execution logic as a regular pass-manager construction. This particularly matters for passes that have
requires. It also ensures that the conversion from a circuit and back to a DAG will follow the same rules, which is expected since it is a shorthand notation, but liable to get out of sync as they are complex.Summary
Details and comments
Fix #13444.
Requires #13821 to effect the warning on the future behaviour change.