Update Qick to 0.2.249

[rodolfocarobene]

Some updates

Checklist before review:

• [x] Update json for testing
• [x] Test with all the experiments in the documentation
• [x] Test with qibocal

Checklist before merge:

• [x] Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
• [x] Tests are passing.
• [x] Documentation is updated.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 94.23%. Comparing base (4fb926d) to head (8b5484d).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## qickupdate #111 +/- ## =========================================== Coverage 94.23% 94.23% =========================================== Files 12 12 Lines 711 711 =========================================== Hits 670 670 Misses 41 41 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/qiboteam/qibosoq/pull/111/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/qibosoq/pull/111/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=qiboteam) | `94.23% <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.

[rodolfocarobene]

Hi @alecandido, could you please have a look at this and #102? As far as I know, in the lab they have been using #102 for some time without major problems. Eventually just the ones that I fixed in this PR.

I did all the tests I could, something that is missing (i would like to do it today/tomorrow) is testing with qubits, but since the changes are very limited, I think this may be ready for review

[rodolfocarobene]

@alecandido, I would merge this and the other PR when it is possible. Then wait for some time to give @JavierSerranoGarcia some time for testing on real hardware and then do a release and merge the qibolab PR

[rodolfocarobene]

(I forgot to approve before, but you didn't need my approval, since it's not pointing to main)

This I know it, but I wanted to wait for a formal approval to not exploit the system :-)

As usual, I'd merge first #102, unless you have an explicit motivation to avoid it

I think it's fine, but for #102 I really have to wait for an approval (the changes in that PR, however, are quite minimal and already tested)