abstract register qubit

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

This PR closes #541

Checklist:

• Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
• Tests are passing.
• Coverage does not decrease.
• Documentation is updated.
• Compatibility with Qibo modules (Please edit this section if the current pull request is not compatible with the following branches).
  • Qibo: master
  • Qibolab: main
  • Qibolab_platforms_qrc: main

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

@alecandido @andrea-pasquale Could you please take a quick look at the new register_qubit function? Sorry for the commented code, I will remove it as soon as possible

[andrea-pasquale]

@alecandido @andrea-pasquale Could you please take a quick look at the new register_qubit function? Sorry for the commented code, I will remove it as soon as possible

I think that it looks good.
A possible enhancement could be to have a clearer distinction between keys and values in data.
Currently keys are treated as args while values are treated as kwargs.

qibocal/src/qibocal/auto/operation.py

Lines 146 to 157 in 6d0ac49

	def register_qubit(self, dtype, *args, **kwargs):
	"""Store output for single qubit."""
	# to be able to handle the non-sweeper case
	ar = np.empty(np.shape(kwargs[list(kwargs.keys())[0]]), dtype=dtype)
	for key, value in kwargs.items():
	ar[key] = value
	if len(args) == 1:
	args = args[0]
	if args in self.data:
	self.data[args] = np.rec.array(np.concatenate((self.data[args], ar)))
	else:
	self.data[args] = np.rec.array(ar)

We could introduce an argument called key or index to pass the key and for the rest we can keep kwargs.
I think that this could be relevant given that for some protocols the key could be also a tuple (especially for two qubit gates protocols).
Let me know what you think.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #554 (df76391) into main (9abd302) will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #554      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.00%   95.97%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          88       88              
  Lines        6055     5939     -116     
==========================================
- Hits         5813     5700     -113     
+ Misses        242      239       -3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	95.97% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

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

Files	Coverage Δ
src/qibocal/auto/operation.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/qibocal/fitting/classifier/data.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../qibocal/protocols/characterization/allxy/allxy.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../characterization/allxy/allxy_drag_pulse_tuning.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...tocols/characterization/allxy/drag_pulse_tuning.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+3.77%)	⬆️
...bocal/protocols/characterization/classification.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../protocols/characterization/coherence/spin_echo.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...tocols/characterization/coherence/spin_echo_msr.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...qibocal/protocols/characterization/coherence/t1.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...cal/protocols/characterization/coherence/t1_msr.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 24 more

[alecandido]

Unfortunately, I will be unable to have look until late next week, sorry

[andrea-pasquale]

Unfortunately, I will be unable to have look until late next week, sorry

Don't worry @alecandido. Thank you for letting us know. I will put @GabrielePalazzo as a reviewer.

[GabrielePalazzo]

I agree with @andrea-pasquale.

Apart from the comment below, everything else seems good to me.

[andrea-pasquale]

Thanks @Edoardo-Pedicillo, I tested the code when I was calibrating qw5q_gold and it looks good to me. As soon as you fixed conflicts we should be ready to merge.