Add sweeper types

[rodolfocarobene]

Sweepers type (factor, offset, absolute) added as per qibolab #439.
For now, I tried to not change the expected behaviour of the routines, in particular:

Sweeper Parameter	Sweeper Type
Frequency	OFFSET
Amplitude	FACTOR
Bias	ABSOLUTE
Attenuation	ABSOLUTE

For attenuation sweepers I'm not sure if absolute is the expected behaviour, I never used them

Checklist:

• Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
• Tests are passing.
• Coverage does not decrease.
• Documentation is updated.

[andrea-pasquale]

Thanks @rodolfocarobene, LGTM.

I can confirm you that attenuation is swept using absolute values.
For the future we could also think about passing this sweeper type directly as an argument of the protocol to give more freedom to the user as we were discussing yesterday.

Btw, if you want to see if tests are passing here you can change the qibolab branch in the pyproject.toml and then regenerate the new lock file using poetry lock.

.

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

I dismissed the review because the tests are not passing

[andrea-pasquale]

I dismissed the review because the tests are not passing

I think that this is expected since the current lock file is using qibolab main where sweeper type is not implemented.
But you are right, lets wait for tests before approving.

Waiting for tests

[rodolfocarobene]

Locally everything is passing, but before merging qibolab needs to be updated so this can wait a bit more.
It's not in draft mode since it should not require modifcations (other then maybe the updated poetry lock)

[rodolfocarobene]

@andrea-pasquale @Edoardo-Pedicillo, this PR should be know ready for review and mergable (since we merged the qibolab PR).

Here I broke almost all the niGSC tests when updating the lock file (in particular using latest version of qibo 0.0.14)...
The problem is fixed when fixing in the lock file qibo==0.0.13, but it should be addressed in some other way.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #369 (0a7c097) into main (5d5b713) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #369      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.12%   54.11%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          68       68              
  Lines        5367     5366       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         2905     2904       -1     
  Misses       2462     2462              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	54.11% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...qibocal/protocols/characterization/coherence/t1.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...cal/protocols/characterization/dispersive_shift.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...terization/flux_depedence/qubit_flux_dependence.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...zation/flux_depedence/resonator_flux_dependence.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...l/protocols/characterization/qubit_spectroscopy.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...bocal/protocols/characterization/rabi/amplitude.py	65.59% <100.00%> (ø)
...l/protocols/characterization/resonator_punchout.py	95.90% <100.00%> (ø)
...characterization/resonator_punchout_attenuation.py	93.46% <100.00%> (ø)
...otocols/characterization/resonator_spectroscopy.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...acterization/resonator_spectroscopy_attenuation.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

The issue with niGSC tests is solved in #380, that was merged in main. Merging the main in your branch should solve the problem.

[rodolfocarobene]

The issue with niGSC tests is solved in #380, that was merged in main. Merging the main in your branch should solve the problem.

You are right, I thought to have merged main but I forgot to pull... sorry!