Replace YAML runcard with JSON ones

[alecandido]

Closes #762

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (d869de0) 63.81% compared to head (2b96468) 63.81%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## kernel #782 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 63.81% 63.81% ======================================= Files 48 48 Lines 5771 5771 ======================================= Hits 3683 3683 Misses 2088 2088 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/qiboteam/qibolab/pull/782/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=qiboteam) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/qiboteam/qibolab/pull/782/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=qiboteam) | `63.81% <100.00%> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=qiboteam#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[scarrazza]

It is fine by me, supposing json will reduce complexity in terms of dependencies.

[stavros11]

@andrea-pasquale @alecandido I spoke with @aorgazf and he also agrees with this change, so if this is ready we can merge and I will propagate the changes to qibolab_platforms_qrc.

[andrea-pasquale]

@andrea-pasquale @alecandido I spoke with @aorgazf and he also agrees with this change, so if this is ready we can merge and I will propagate the changes to qibolab_platforms_qrc.

Good, @stavros11 I might have the majority of the JSON ready for qibolab_platform_qrc. I can take of that if you want.

[alecandido]

@stavros11 now it is merged. It will be anyhow in the next release, so no need to rush for the changes in the qibolab_platforms_qrc (for as long as people will use the latest release, of course it will be required for testing new PRs in Qibolab)

[stavros11]

Good, @stavros11 I might have the majority of the JSON ready for qibolab_platform_qrc. I can take of that if you want.

Thanks, if you already have them feel free to open a PR. Otherwise I will do it later or tomorrow.

@stavros11 now it is merged. It will be anyhow in the next release, so no need to rush for the changes in the qibolab_platforms_qrc (for as long as people will use the latest release, of course it will be required for testing new PRs in Qibolab)

I am not sure if there is anyone (other than qibocal CI) that is using releases, but in any case it will be useful to have at least a PR with the json runcards to be able to keep developing on qibolab main.

[alecandido]

I believe Qibocal should usually develop against releases, and only sometimes using the Git version (when a new Qibolab feature is strictly required).

[andrea-pasquale]

Indeed with the current workflow Qibocal is only working with releases. This is why usually I push for qibolab releases 😄

[alecandido]

This is why usually I push for qibolab releases 😄

I know, this is the unpleasant part, and the motivation for monorepos. However, hopefully it will happen less and less :)