-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
Remove opflow classes from primitives #11209
Conversation
Thank you for opening a new pull request. Before your PR can be merged it will first need to pass continuous integration tests and be reviewed. Sometimes the review process can be slow, so please be patient. While you're waiting, please feel free to review other open PRs. While only a subset of people are authorized to approve pull requests for merging, everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. Doing reviews helps reduce the burden on the core team and helps make the project's code better for everyone. One or more of the the following people are requested to review this:
|
Opflow is being removed by #11111. It contains the same changes as this PR. |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 6779944663
💛 - Coveralls |
@@ -350,7 +349,7 @@ class TestObservableValidation(QiskitTestCase): | |||
("IXYZ", (SparsePauliOp("IXYZ"),)), | |||
(Pauli("IXYZ"), (SparsePauliOp("IXYZ"),)), | |||
(SparsePauliOp("IXYZ"), (SparsePauliOp("IXYZ"),)), | |||
(PauliSumOp(SparsePauliOp("IXYZ")), (SparsePauliOp("IXYZ"),)), | |||
(SparsePauliOp(SparsePauliOp("IXYZ")), (SparsePauliOp("IXYZ"),)), |
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.
You don't need to test SparsePauliOp(SparsePauliOp(...))
. The test of SparsePauliOp(...)
is enough.
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.
Thanks @mberna, as @t-imamichi mentioned we were planning to do this as part of #11111, which should be ready as soon as the algorithms removal is merged. Is there any particular reason why this should be done earlier?
Since #11111 is still a draft and also marked as on-hold until #11086 is merged, would it be possible to merge this PR first? This will enable the removal of |
Even if we merged this right now, it won't be in even a pre-release version of Qiskit until a couple of days before Summit, so I'm not certain that it'll accelerate your timelines. #11111 is only in draft / on hold as a marker that it's not the first step in the process of safe removal of The full timeline of things that happen to remove
Of these, the removal of This PR shouldn't merge before |
#11111 Has finally been merged 🎉 , so this PR is no longer necessary. Thanks for your patience :) |
Summary
PauliSumOp
class has been deprecated since0.24.0
. This PR removesPauliSumOp
support from the primitives.Details and comments
Updated the tests accordingly.