Add feat(transpiler): add UnrollBoxes pass #15400
Conversation
|
One or more of the following people are relevant to this code:
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 19845452657Details
💛 - Coveralls |
|
Hi Debasmita, thanks for doing this! The code is very clean and mostly LGTM. I had a question though. |
| self.known_annotations = known_annotations or (lambda ann: True) | ||
| self.max_depth = max_depth | ||
|
|
||
| def _validate_annotations(self, box_op: BoxOp, depth: int = 0) -> bool: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the use of the depth argument exactly? I assume that it's to not unroll BoxOps that exceed a certain depth. Will this work fine for the recursive case with multiple nested Boxes? Also I don't see it being passed in the .run(self,dag) function. Is this supposed to be called by the user as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank @Shobhit21287 . The depth argument was intended for a future extension where UnrollBoxes would stop unrolling once a configurable nesting depth (max_depth) is reached. Right now _validate_annotations is always called without a depth, so the parameter is effectively unused and recursive calls always see depth == 0
|
|
||
| def __init__( | ||
| self, | ||
| recursive: bool = True, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, thank you for your contribution. I had a couple of clarifications regarding this PR. There is a recursive flag being used over here, and the value is being set. However, I don't see it being reused anywhere else in code. Has it been set for future use? If yes, would you say it makes more sense to keep this addition in a future PR rather than this one?
|
|
||
| for ann_dict in getattr(box_op, "annotations", []): | ||
| if not self.known_annotations(ann_dict): | ||
| return False |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we add a test case here to test behavior on passing unknown annotations? To ensure that this callable returns False, but the :class:BoxOp remains in the circuit?
| class UnrollBoxes(TransformationPass): | ||
| """Unroll BoxOp operations by replacing them with their internal circuit body.""" | ||
|
|
||
| def __init__( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there is merit in writing a short doctstring here, defining the input arguments, their types and short descriptions for the :meth:__init__. Since this is a user-facing functionality.
aaryav-3
left a comment
aaryav-3
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you so much for your contribution, this PR is minimally and effectively written to introduce the new transpilar pass, I just had a couple of doubts and clarifications before it is good to go
5 participants
Implement a new UnrollBoxes transpiler pass to replace BoxOp “scaffolding” with the gates from the boxed circuit body.
Support nested boxes via @trivial_recurse, so boxes inside boxes are unrolled correctly.
Add an annotation-aware API (known_annotations: Callable[[dict], bool]) so callers can control which annotations are safe to ignore during unrolling.
Fixes Transpiler pass to replace boxes by their contents? #14468