qiskit-bot
commented
2 months ago Thank you for opening a new pull request.
Before your PR can be merged it will first need to pass continuous integration tests and be reviewed. Sometimes the review process can be slow, so please be patient.
While you're waiting, please feel free to review other open PRs. While only a subset of people are authorized to approve pull requests for merging, everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. Doing reviews helps reduce the burden on the core team and helps make the project's code better for everyone.
One or more of the following people are relevant to this code:
@Cryoris@Qiskit/terra-core@ajavadia@kevinhartman@mtreinish
coveralls
Summary
The
mutablecheck in the controlled-gateOperationFromPythonextraction logic to check for a mutatedbase_gatewas overzealous, and would return false positives for parametric controlled gates. The only modification tobase_gateof a standard-library gate that would not have caused data-model problems from Python space would be setting the base-gate label, which is used for a public feature of the circuit visualisers.The change to
get_standard_gate_name_mappingis just a minor convenience to make the gate objects directly appendable to a circuit; previously, eachParameterobject was distinct and had a UUID clash with others of the same name, so could not be used together. The new behaviour is purely a convenience for tests; it largely should not be useful for users to directly append these gates.Details and comments
This is an automatic backport of pull request #13067 done by Mergify.