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 handling of BackendV1 simulators in PassManagerConfig.from_backend (backport #9719) #9725

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 4, 2023

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Mar 3, 2023

This is an automatic backport of pull request #9719 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

#9719)

This commit fixes two small oversights that would appear when calling
PassManagerConfig.from_backend() with a simulator BackendV1 backend.
The handling of optional fields in the BackendProperties and
PulseDefaults objects for BackendV1 backends was missing that a
BackendProperties object's gates field could be None and that the
defaults() method could return None in the absense of any pulse
calibrations (both of which typically only are True for simulators). In
these cases this would cause an error constructing the
InstructionDurations object and the InstructionScheduleMap object
respectively. This fixes the handling of these edge cases so that
PassManagerConfig.from_backend() will work with any BackendV1 based
backend.

Fixes #8546
Fixes #9265

Co-authored-by: mergify[bot] <37929162+mergify[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 35feded)
@mergify mergify bot requested a review from a team as a code owner March 3, 2023 23:09
@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

@jakelishman jakelishman added Changelog: Bugfix Include in the "Fixed" section of the changelog automerge labels Mar 3, 2023
@jakelishman jakelishman added this to the 0.23.3 milestone Mar 3, 2023
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 7c43efc into stable/0.23 Mar 4, 2023
@mergify mergify bot deleted the mergify/bp/stable/0.23/pr-9719 branch March 4, 2023 00:46
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