Coverage fix

[BrunoLiegiBastonLiegi]

This restores the 100% coverage.

Checklist:

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (e3d8008) to head (6be8f28).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #1288      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   99.84%   100.00%   +0.15%     
===========================================
  Files          76        76              
  Lines       10844     10834      -10     
===========================================
+ Hits        10827     10834       +7     
+ Misses         17         0      -17     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	100.00% <100.00%> (+0.15%)	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[BrunoLiegiBastonLiegi]

@stavros11 Can I ask for your help to double check whether some lines that I commented out are still useful?
Namely, here
https://github.com/qiboteam/qibo/blob/21c766e12290c2a2818132c4ef092119dab67e19/src/qibo/models/circuit.py#L704C2-L707C63
I don't think we allow for different measurements to be in the same register, right?
And here
https://github.com/qiboteam/qibo/blob/21c766e12290c2a2818132c4ef092119dab67e19/src/qibo/gates/abstract.py#L87C1-L90C1
I think this was needed because either the qubits, target_qubits or control_qubits attribute of Gate was originally initialized as a set, however, I believe I recently changed this in #1259, and thus it is no longer needed. Can you confirm that?

[stavros11]

Namely, here https://github.com/qiboteam/qibo/blob/21c766e12290c2a2818132c4ef092119dab67e19/src/qibo/models/circuit.py#L704C2-L707C63 I don't think we allow for different measurements to be in the same register, right?

That is correct, based on the error here:

qibo/src/qibo/models/circuit.py

Lines 671 to 675 in 21c766e

	for mgate in self.measurements:
	if name == mgate.register_name:
	raise_error(
	KeyError, f"Register {name} already exists in circuit."
	)

so it should be fine to drop the commented lines.
Not entirely related but

qibo/src/qibo/models/circuit.py

Line 708 in 21c766e

return {name: qubits for name, qubits in registers.items()}

doesn't seem to be doing much other than copying the registers dictionary, right? It shouldn't be different than simply

return registers

And here https://github.com/qiboteam/qibo/blob/21c766e12290c2a2818132c4ef092119dab67e19/src/qibo/gates/abstract.py#L87C1-L90C1 I think this was needed because either the qubits, target_qubits or control_qubits attribute of Gate was originally initialized as a set, however, I believe I recently changed this in #1259, and thus it is no longer needed. Can you confirm that?

I think I was not the author of raw and these particular lines, but I believe you are right, this should only be there to accommodate for _control_qubits being a set. Since this is no longer the case, it should be safe to drop.

[scarrazza]

@BrunoLiegiBastonLiegi I believe this is almost ready to go, could you please merge master / fix the lock file?

[renatomello]

@BrunoLiegiBastonLiegi I believe this is almost ready to go, could you please merge master / fix the lock file?

Generating the updated lock file is taking upwards of 5min. Is that normal?