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

CI tests failing on main #863

Closed
edoaltamura opened this issue Dec 2, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #875
Closed

CI tests failing on main #863

edoaltamura opened this issue Dec 2, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #875
Assignees
Labels
type: ci 🔧 Related to Continuous Integration workflows
Milestone

Comments

@edoaltamura
Copy link
Collaborator

Environment

  • Qiskit Machine Learning version: 0.8.0
  • Qiskit Aer version: qiskit_aer-0.15.1 (stable)
  • Qiskit version: 1.3.0

What is happening?

The nightly CI tests on main fail after the Qiskit 1.3.0 release, with error triggered in Aer:

File "C:\hostedtoolcache\windows\Python\3.12.7\x64\Lib\site-packages\qiskit_aer\backends\aerbackend.py", line 478, in _execute_circuits_job
    raise AerError("circuits have parameters but parameter_binds is not specified.")

Occasionally, this behaviour also emits qiskit_machine_learning.exceptions.AlgorithmError: 'Estimator job failed.'.an

How can we reproduce the issue?

Examples of this behaviour can be seen in https://github.com/qiskit-community/qiskit-machine-learning/actions/runs/12111491107at

What should happen?

No error should occur as a consequence of the new release updates; instead, a warning should be emitted in case of upcoming breaking changes.

Any suggestions?

  • For version 0.8.0 we can either fix this and bind the parameters to circuits explicitly, label it as stable backport potential and make Qiskit 1.3.0 a requirement, or do this for 0.8.1.
  • Fix it internally and keep the QML UI unchanged until later versions, e.g. 0.9.0.
@edoaltamura
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This issue appears to be related to Qiskit/qiskit#13504. For now, we should backport #865 to the 0.8 stable branch, so that:

#866 could also be addressed at this stage. What are your thoughts on this strategy @OkuyanBoga @woodsp-ibm?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: ci 🔧 Related to Continuous Integration workflows
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant