Remove Rust workflow for 0.1

[stavros11]

Just following #1045 (comment). From the other PR I thought that the issue is only with macos, however ubuntu also failed, so I ended up removing the whole workflow.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 70.27%. Comparing base (a6049a9) to head (94b41e1).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              0.1    #1064   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   70.27%   70.27%           
=======================================
  Files          64       64           
  Lines        6698     6698           
=======================================
  Hits         4707     4707           
  Misses       1991     1991           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	70.27% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[alecandido]

Yes, the problem seems to be the exact same (an issue in the uint32 to int32 conversion, most likely we could force the conversion in Python at call site), and now platform unrelated.

In any case, maybe we should remove not only the test, but also the crate itself, since now untested. What do you think?

[stavros11]

Yes, the problem seems to be the exact same (an issue in the uint32 to int32 conversion, most likely we could force the conversion in Python at call site), and now platform unrelated.

Out of curiosity, in 15dce6a I changed the return type of the Rust function to u32 and the workflow seems to be passing (https://github.com/qiboteam/qibolab/actions/runs/11234353823/job/31229984523). I also tried it locally and it worked after the fix (originally I was also getting error). Maybe this is a preferable solution compared to dropping the Rust API completely from 0.1 (also anticipating potential future releases from that branch)?

If yes, I can close this and open another PR with the fix.

[alecandido]

Since there is now #1067, we can even close this.

[stavros11]

Since there is now #1067, we can even close this.

Indeed, closing in favor of #1067.