-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
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
Solve test measurements issue with CI #895
Conversation
Hello. You may have forgotten to update the changelog!
|
…ane-lightning into testMeasurementsIssue
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #895 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.20% 83.17% -9.03%
==========================================
Files 93 24 -69
Lines 11376 2146 -9230
==========================================
- Hits 10489 1785 -8704
+ Misses 887 361 -526 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…ane-lightning into testMeasurementsIssue
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.
Could you please report the change in testing times that this change will bring?
Given the current CI pressure, I am willing to say 1e6 shot workloads aren't something we should be adding to the mix. |
Running locally on a laptop with a CPU: 12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1265U and Command test: PL_DEVICE=lightning.qubit python -m pytest tests/lightning_qubit/test_measurements_class.py --maxfail=1 Timing with the current implementation: Timing with Don't change too much |
@mlxd I agree with that but the CIs fail randomly and my major concern is to delay the general workflow of the others. That is why I propose this quick fix 😕 I am working on a solution but is not ready yet. |
Extracting the run time from the last CI testing in Summary
Run time from CI in
|
@AmintorDusko |
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.
As times were not quite affected by these changes and precision improved, I'm good with it.
Thank you @LuisAlfredoNu.
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.
LGTM! Just reverting the meas tests back to their original configs to prevent the random failures on CIs. 👍
Before submitting
Please complete the following checklist when submitting a PR:
All new features must include a unit test.
If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add a test to the
tests
directory!All new functions and code must be clearly commented and documented.
If you do make documentation changes, make sure that the docs build and
render correctly by running
make docs
.Ensure that the test suite passes, by running
make test
.Add a new entry to the
.github/CHANGELOG.md
file, summarizing thechange, and including a link back to the PR.
Ensure that code is properly formatted by running
make format
.When all the above are checked, delete everything above the dashed
line and fill in the pull request template.
Context:
Revert changes about testing the measurements with shots. The probability of failing the test is non zero then something the test can fail randomly and reduces the CI quality in all PR.
Description of the Change:
Benefits:
Stop failing the CI regarding the measurement test with shots
Possible Drawbacks:
Related GitHub Issues: