Bug(?) in q-component of DRAG pulse

[stavros11]

Thanks @sorewachigauyo for reporting this. It would be could if someone else can confirm this is correct because I am not 100% sure.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.59%. Comparing base (76def93) to head (ad50c8c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #888   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.59%   66.59%           
=======================================
  Files          55       55           
  Lines        5942     5942           
=======================================
  Hits         3957     3957           
  Misses       1985     1985           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	66.59% <ø> (ø)

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.

[hay-k]

Looks correct to me.

[alecandido]

I should check if this is still present in 0.2 as well.

[alecandido]

Ok, in 0.2 it was already correct

qibolab/src/qibolab/pulses/envelope.py

Lines 186 to 194 in f829e8f

	def q(self, samples: int) -> Waveform:
	"""Generate ...
	.. todo::
	"""
	ts = np.arange(samples)
	mu = (samples - 1) / 2
	sigma = _samples_sigma(self.rel_sigma, samples)
	return self.beta * (-(ts - mu) / (sigma**2)) * self.i(samples)

[andrea-pasquale]

It makes sense. I didn't notice any difference when calibrating with main and this branch which seems weird...

[alecandido]

It makes sense. I didn't notice any difference when calibrating with main and this branch which seems weird...

In a few relevant cases, sampling_rate will be just 1, so it's not incredibly strange

[stavros11]

Thank you all for checking. This already has several approvals so I will merge.

I should check if this is still present in 0.2 as well.

I also checked there for a second "opinion" and saw that it was fixed.

It makes sense. I didn't notice any difference when calibrating with main and this branch which seems weird...

In a few relevant cases, sampling_rate will be just 1, so it's not incredibly strange

Indeed, for QM and QBlox sampling_rate is 1 so this shouldn't make any difference. That may also be why it was not noticed for so long.