-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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
Read and write a model's tasks to config files #116
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #116 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 58.44% 58.61% +0.16%
==========================================
Files 36 36
Lines 5304 5325 +21
==========================================
+ Hits 3100 3121 +21
Misses 2204 2204
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@alex-simm I pushed some commits to fix the failing tests (as explained by @nwittler). I think this PR is ready to be merged now. Please remember to do a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ready to merge!
|
Great thanks, I didn't notice the other test was failing. |
Do the codeclimate issues need to be fixed? The |
No they aren't a result of your edits, so I guess we fix them some other time. |
What
When a model is written to or read from a configuration file, the tasks are formatted and parsed, too.
Why
Fixes #18
How
Almost the same as it is done for the qubits and couplings in a model. There's a list of possible classes in
tasks.py:task_lib
and instances are created by passing the parsed dictionaries to the classes' constructors in theparams
argument. As far as I can see, adding that argument doesn't create any conflict with the normal usage of the constructors.