-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
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
Update lightning.tensor
docs
#909
Conversation
lightning.tensor
docslightning.tensor
docs
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #909 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 96.27% 56.33% -39.94%
===========================================
Files 214 24 -190
Lines 28620 2297 -26323
===========================================
- Hits 27553 1294 -26259
+ Misses 1067 1003 -64 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Awesome @multiphaseCFD!
Just few suggestions about README vs device.rst
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.
Great work @multiphaseCFD !
I am bit confused about some of the recommendations you are making, perhaps I am missing something so it would be good to clarify that to me (and to the user)
Co-authored-by: Thomas Germain <[email protected]>
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.
LGTM
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.
Thanks for the update @multiphaseCFD 👍
Still some doubts and confusion around the following points:
- recommending to disable new opmath. This should be a very last resort as it will likely cause all kinds of unforseeable problems. If there are things not supported right now, we should just note that and aim at fixing that asap.
- recommending to use finite shots generally. For returning things like qml.probs and getting finite samples - sure, but for expectation values? Do we really get faster performance when using finite shots? Would be very strange if that was the case 🤔
Co-authored-by: Korbinian Kottmann <[email protected]>
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.
Looks good!
Co-authored-by: Amintor Dusko <[email protected]>
Before submitting
Please complete the following checklist when submitting a PR:
All new features must include a unit test.
If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add a test to the
tests
directory!All new functions and code must be clearly commented and documented.
If you do make documentation changes, make sure that the docs build and
render correctly by running
make docs
.Ensure that the test suite passes, by running
make test
.Add a new entry to the
.github/CHANGELOG.md
file, summarizing thechange, and including a link back to the PR.
Ensure that code is properly formatted by running
make format
.When all the above are checked, delete everything above the dashed
line and fill in the pull request template.
Context:
[SC-65786] and [SC-68333]
Description of the Change:
Benefits:
Possible Drawbacks:
Related GitHub Issues: