Random doctest failures

[purva-thakre]

Description

Fixes #473

This is technically not a fix as we have to specify the full import path for a bunch of files only. If this is indeed the source of the issue where Python could not distinguish between the module and functions, we should rename all .py files to not have the same names as the functions in them.

For example, rename toqito/state_props/is_antidistinguishable.py to toqito/state_props/is_antidistinguishable_function.py

Changes

Notable changes that this PR has either accomplished or will accomplish. Feel free to add more lines to the itemized list
below.

• Added full import path for the failing doctest examples

Checklist

Before marking your PR ready for review, make sure you checked the following locally. If this is your first PR, you might be notified of some workflow failures after a maintainer has approved the workflow jobs to be run on your PR.

Additional information is available in the documentation.

• Use ruff and pylint for errors related to code style and formatting.
• Verify all previous and newly added unit tests pass in pytest.
• Check the documentation build does not lead to any failures. Sphinx build can be checked locally for any failures related to your PR
• Use linkcheck to check for broken links in the documentation
• Use doctest to verify the examples in the function docstrings work as expected.

[vprusso]

Definitely a useful one to make! Thank you, @purva-thakre !

[purva-thakre]

@vprusso Ha! No worries, the random failures were driving me crazy. BTW you commented before I got the chance to edit the PR description. I think the issue is due to Python getting confused about importing the module or the function. An easier solution would be to rename all the .py files.

Edit: We could also hold on for a couple of days to check if the doctest workflow fails after merging this PR. I am still not sure if this is indeed the problem that's causing these failures.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.1%. Comparing base (e0aed37) to head (72a366a).

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #575   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    98.1%   98.1%           
======================================
  Files         162     162           
  Lines        3108    3108           
  Branches      760     760           
======================================
  Hits         3050    3050           
  Misses         37      37           
  Partials       21      21           

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

[vprusso]

Hmm, renaming the files seems dangerous and could break backwards compatibility. Not sure exactly what's going on with the failures, but I would consider something like that as a last ditch effort I'd say.

[purva-thakre]

So, do you want me to create an issue so that we work on this sometime in the future? I did add a comment in case we accidentally remove these.

I have a feeling this PR and #244 are closely related.

[vprusso]

For now if this works, that's great. Still curious why this is failing though as it seems to abide by the same pattern as other functions abide by. Curious, but for now, LGTM

[purva-thakre]

Still curious why this is failing though as it seems to abide by the same pattern as other functions abide by.

Same here!