-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
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
Calculation of Clifford.stabilizers
and Clifford.destabilizers
in parallel
#1206
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1206 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 71 71
Lines 10443 10450 +7
=========================================
+ Hits 10443 10450 +7
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
@@ -150,6 +152,8 @@ def stabilizers(self, symplectic: bool = False, return_array: bool = False): | |||
return_array (bool, optional): To be used when ``symplectic = False``. | |||
If ``True`` returns the stabilizers as ``ndarray``. | |||
If ``False``, returns stabilizers as strings. Defaults to ``False``. | |||
cores (int, optional): number of processes to be used to calculate all stabilizers. |
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.
I think I would rather call this ncpus
or similar, which from my experience is a more commonly used name for this kind of things.
pool.close() | ||
pool.join() |
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.
Do we need these two?
I'm closing this PR because we might go in a different direction. |
Checklist: