Extend evolve! for Chain in canonical form

[jofrevalles]

Summary

This PR extends the evolve! function for Chains in the canonical form.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 40.74074% with 32 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.62%. Comparing base (4ed7f4e) to head (bccf668).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/Ansatz/Chain.jl	20.51%	31 Missing ⚠️
src/Quantum.jl	92.85%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #31      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   71.74%   68.62%   -3.13%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines         499      529      +30     
==========================================
+ Hits          358      363       +5     
- Misses        141      166      +25     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jofrevalles]

Everything seems to work nice:

Also, I have added some tests for both the canonical and non-canonical evolve functions.

[mofeing]

I think it would be less confusing if you use the notation $\Lambda_{(i-1, i)} \Gamma_i \Lambda_{(i,j)} \Gamma_j \Lambda_{(j,j+1)}$ instead.

[jofrevalles]

This for me is not ideal, I put the subindices there to explicitly show which $\Lambda$ and $\Gamma$ tensor we refer (we have a collection of $\Lambda^{[N-1]}$ and $\Gamma^{[N]}$ tensors). The indices you put are tensor indices, which is another thing. l like the notation that TenPy uses, which is a superindex.

[mofeing]

Be careful about this. Wouldn't it be better to call contract! instead?

[jofrevalles]

For me, it makes more sense to directly replace these three with θ.

[jofrevalles]

I'd merge this. I have tested locally and everything works fine. @mofeing