Write proper unit tests

[gwwatkin]

What's done:

• [x] #162

  • 181

• [x] #165

  • 168

• [x] #177
• [x] #173
• [x] Checked all the calculations of the Litinski transform by hand.

I propose full coverage of critical components, so near 100% coverage of the following:

• [ ] Circuit of Pauli rotations and associated classes (we should be very close here)
• [ ] Logical Lattice Ops

  • 48

• [ ] Patch Computation
• [ ] Simulation
• [ ] Visual Array

For later, maybe create a separate issue, since they are not critical to our workflow:

• [ ] Litinski transform. We have the math down, but may be lower priority
• [ ] #44

I would leave out for the moment the stuff about the dag and scheduling of operations

[gwwatkin]

@isolatedinformation is already working on writing some unit tests for #48 and #44

[alexnguyenn]

@gwwatkin the issue description is too ambiguous, should we change this into something else?

I am thinking either a coverage % target or full coverage for critical components.

[gwwatkin]

@alexnguyenn and @isolatedinformation,

A recap of what's done (please add something if it's missing):

• 162

• 181

• 165

• 168

• 177

• 173

• We checked all the calculations of the Litinski transform by hand

I propose full coverage of critical components, so near 100% coverage of the following:

• [ ] Circuit of Pauli rotations and associated classes (we should be very close here)
• [ ] Logical Lattice Ops

  • 48

• [ ] Patch Computation
• [ ] Simulation
• [ ] Visual Array

For later, maybe create a separate issue, since they are not critical to our workflow:

• [ ] Litinski transform. We have the math down, but may be lower priority
• [ ] #44

I would leave out for the moment the stuff about the dag and scheduling of operations

[alexnguyenn]

@gwwatkin this looks great to me. Might want to include the new goals in the description.

[gwwatkin]

:+1: Added