Removing consider-using-enumerate from lint exclusions and updates #12286
Conversation
qiskit-bot
added
the
Community PR
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9295747340Details
💛 - Coveralls |
joesho112358
requested review from
nonhermitian,
a team,
alexanderivrii and
ShellyGarion
as code owners
|
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:
|
# Conflicts: # pyproject.toml
|
@mtreinish as a heads up, the latest commit probably needs your eyes. specifically in the |
qiskit/transpiler/passmanager.py
Outdated
| original_qubits_reverse = {v: k for k, v in original_qubit_indices.items()} | ||
| original_qubits = [] | ||
| for i in range(len(original_qubits_reverse)): | ||
| original_qubits.append(original_qubits_reverse[i]) | ||
| for v, k in original_qubits_reverse.items(): | ||
| original_qubits.append(k) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a behavioural change to me. Dictionary iteration order is insertion order, but the previous form was specifically looking up in numerical order of the v items.
The vs are ints here (from 0 to n-1) and the k are Qubit instances.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, i see it now. ok, i'll have to update this
|
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:
|
| original_qubits = [None] * len(original_qubit_indices) | ||
| for k, v in original_qubit_indices.items(): | ||
| original_qubits[v] = k |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm mildly worried about this logic in the failure mode here. If somehow original_qubit_indices was incorrectly constructed and missing an index this wouldn't catch that. We'd never know that there was an entry in the list which was None and I just checked that virtual_permutation_layout.inverse() doesn't error if it gets None on an input element (which itself seems like a bug).. I liked the previous logic because it would error if you original_qubit_indices was incorrectly constructed.
While it's not critical and I think this would not be an issue in practice, I'm just wondering if we need to make this change here? Like if pylint flagging this I'm wondering if a local exclude makes more sense in this case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be sufficient to add a check after regenerating original_qubits?
if None in original_qubits:
raise ValueError("original_qubit_indices is missing an index")
Summary
#9614 - removing consider-using-enumerate
Details and comments
Updates for removing this rule if wanted. Open to suggestions on variable names