Closed albi3ro closed 1 year ago
was there anything plugin-specific about this behaviour? if not, this is covered in PL core tests and this looks good! if so, can we keep the test but assert that it runs successfully?
was there anything plugin-specific about this behaviour? if not, this is covered in PL core tests and this looks good! if so, can we keep the test but assert that it runs successfully?
So it arises from default behaviour in qml.Device
. Changed here: https://github.com/PennyLaneAI/pennylane/pull/4437
I'll add the test back in but test the results rather than the existence of an error.
Merging #87 (9a378af) into master (29a38f2) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #87 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.99% 93.99%
=======================================
Files 6 6
Lines 233 233
=======================================
Hits 219 219
Misses 14 14
There was a test that was checking that you couldn't have a state prep after another operation. Now we can have state preps after other operations. So we are removing that test.