Fix bug in max-cut solver (issue #611)

[TolisChal]

This PR fixes the bug in the max-cut solver as reported in https://github.com/qiskit-community/qiskit-optimization/issues/611

[TolisChal]

Hi @t-imamichi, @woodsp-ibm, @stefan-woerner! I take care of the pylint errors in this PR: https://github.com/qiskit-community/qiskit-optimization/pull/634 Shall I wait for that one to be merged and rebase this one?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 11496393782

Details

• 27 of 29 (93.1%) changed or added relevant lines in 17 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 92.857%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
qiskit_optimization/applications/max_cut.py	0	2	0.0%
<!--	Total:	27	29	93.1%	-->

Totals
Change from base Build 10312432197:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	4446
Relevant Lines:	4788

---

💛 - Coveralls

[t-imamichi]

Thank you for fixing an issue. I read the changelog of pylint and found that a new check too-many-positional-arguments was introduced by pylint 3.3. https://pylint.readthedocs.io/en/latest/whatsnew/3/3.3/index.html#new-checks

Because qiskit-optimization already has the following config for max-args, how about adding a similar config for max-positional-args as follows too? https://github.com/qiskit-community/qiskit-optimization/blob/807d48167caf11cd93bec85f26b34614fb7868da/.pylintrc#L313

max-positional-arguments=8

https://pylint.pycqa.org/en/latest/user_guide/messages/refactor/too-many-positional-arguments.html

[t-imamichi]

Let me try the config #637

[t-imamichi]

How about merging #637? Could you take a look at it? You can minimize the change with the config.

[t-imamichi]

I closed #637 following @woodsp-ibm's comment.

[t-imamichi]

LGTM overall. I wrote some comments.