Fixes in correct_phase_drift
behaviour + more robust Pulse comparison + Python 3.12 support
#690
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
correct_phase_drift
:enable_eom(..., correct_phase_drift=True)
was including the fall time before the buffer, while it should have considered just the buffer.add_eom_pulse()
was changing only the phase of the added pulse while it should have also shifted the phase reference by this amountPulse.__eq__()
: This was needed for the UTs ofcorrect_phase_drift
. The custom method introduces a minimal precision when comparing phase values and it is insensitive to the% (2 *np.pi)
wrapping.phase_shifts
were drawn after the modulated pulse was over; in hindsight, this was excessive as it prevents two consecutive pulses (with a phase shift between them) to be placed back-to-back even under theno-delay
protocol.