Update basis equivalence test to be more specific #6532
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This commit updates the basis translator test:
test_skip_target_basis_equivalences_1 to be more speific to the case it
was designed to test. It was originally added in #6369 as a dedicated
reproduce test to validate we fixed issue #6350 where the basis
translator was trying to translate a gate already in the basis set which
resulted in a less than ideal (but still valid) output circuit. However,
this test was written to just mirror the original issue which was part
of a larger workflow and is too broad for a dedicated test case. This is
primarily because it was running a full transpile against a backend with
the sabre swap routing pass instead of only running the basis
translator (which is what we're testing). To fix this issue with the
test this commit extracts the qasm from the transpilation into the basis
translator when running the full reproduce from the original issue and
uses that as the input circuit, then the test is updated to only run
basis translation and optimization instead of the full transpilation
against a backend. This makes the test more targetted to what it's
specifically for and stable against unrelated changes to the sabre swap
pass.
Details and comments
This was extracted from #6302 because the same issue I hit with this test in that PR @boschmitt also encountered in #6498