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

Fix basis_gates and coupling_map backend override in transpile() (backport #9789) #9792

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 14, 2023

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Mar 14, 2023

This is an automatic backport of pull request #9789 done by Mergify.


Mergify commands and options

More conditions and actions can be found in the documentation.

You can also trigger Mergify actions by commenting on this pull request:

  • @Mergifyio refresh will re-evaluate the rules
  • @Mergifyio rebase will rebase this PR on its base branch
  • @Mergifyio update will merge the base branch into this PR
  • @Mergifyio backport <destination> will backport this PR on <destination> branch

Additionally, on Mergify dashboard you can:

  • look at your merge queues
  • generate the Mergify configuration with the config editor.

Finally, you can contact us on https://mergify.com

This commit fixes an issue in the transpile() function when a user
specified the `backend` argument with a BackendV2 based backend along
with `basis_gates` or `coupling_map`. In this case the `transpile()` was
generating the preset pass manager with a target, coupling map, and
basis gates list. However, most individual passes that take basis gates
and a Target will prefer to use the target if both are specified. This
is generally sane behavior at the pass level because the target contains
more rich data and tighter constraints that a transpiler pass will need
to worry about. To fix this limitation this commit updates transpile()
to not use the backend's target if either basis_gates or coupling_map
are specified.

Longer term this should no longer be an issue when #9256 is implemented
and we'll be relying solely on a target internally. But this fix is
needed until #9256 is started.

Fixes #9781

Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit bf3bb96)
@mergify mergify bot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 14, 2023 14:19
@qiskit-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

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:

  • @Qiskit/terra-core

@mtreinish mtreinish added Changelog: Bugfix Include in the "Fixed" section of the changelog automerge labels Mar 14, 2023
@jakelishman jakelishman added this to the 0.23.3 milestone Mar 14, 2023
@mergify mergify bot merged commit b220d07 into stable/0.23 Mar 14, 2023
@mergify mergify bot deleted the mergify/bp/stable/0.23/pr-9789 branch March 14, 2023 15:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Changelog: Bugfix Include in the "Fixed" section of the changelog
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants