start of QuantumToolboxExt #121

jeffwack · 2025-05-30T08:48:59Z

This is incomplete, but I have made some progress on #116 and have some questions. My strategy was to copy the file QuantumOpticsExt and go line by line to convert to QuantumToolbox. I ran into name collisions (basis and \otimes) come to mind, so I decided to be conservative and use the QuantumToolbox.function() form for all function calls.

I ran into a roadblock converting this:

const xyzopdict = Dict(:X=>_x, :Y=>_y, :Z=>_z)
const xyzstatedict = Dict(:X=>(_s₊,_s₋),:Y=>(_i₊,_i₋),:Z=>(_l0,_l1))
for control in (:X, :Y, :Z)
    for target in (:X, :Y, :Z)
        k1, k2 = xyzstatedict[control]
        o = xyzopdict[target]
        gate = QuantumToolbox.tensor(proj(k1),_id) + QuantumToolbox.tensor(proj(k2),o)
        structname = Symbol(control,"C",target,"Gate")
        let gate=copy(gate)
            @eval express_nolookup(::$(structname), ::QuantumToolboxRepr) = $gate
        end
    end
end

Specifically, you cannot copy() a QuantumToolbox operator. This example shows the error:

using QuantumToolbox
copy(sigmap())

So, to avoid type piracy we cannot implement the conversion as written without contributing a method for copy() to QuantumToolbox?

Another route would be to rework that chunk to avoid the copy, but I am not so clear on how it does what it does. Why the macro?

codecov · 2025-05-30T08:56:01Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.30769% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.07%. Comparing base (d11c261) to head (81f3f90).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
ext/QuantumToolboxExt/QuantumToolboxExt.jl	91.66%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #121      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.48%   76.07%   -0.42%     
==========================================
  Files          20       21       +1     
  Lines         842      886      +44     
==========================================
+ Hits          644      674      +30     
- Misses        198      212      +14

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

apkille · 2025-05-30T14:54:46Z

Specifically, you cannot copy() a QuantumToolbox operator. This example shows the error:

Could you just print the error here? It makes review and answering questions faster.

Another route would be to rework that chunk to avoid the copy, but I am not so clear on how it does what it does. Why the macro?

Notice that the for loops are iterating through Symbols. Here's a discussion on what @eval does that probably is helpful.

So, to avoid type piracy we cannot implement the conversion as written without contributing a method for copy() to QuantumToolbox?

Yeah, if you do want a new copy method for the QObjs, I would recommend submitting a PR to QuantumToolbox rather than committing type piracy here. Although that's really not necessary, there's a bunch of different ways you could define the express_nolookup methods here. To help understand what the chunk does, note how we do it in actually defining symbolic objects like (XCXGate and ZCYGate) in the source code:

QuantumSymbolics.jl/src/QSymbolicsBase/predefined.jl

Lines 119 to 132 in a4980ef

    
           const xyzsuplabeldict = Dict(:X=>"ˣ",:Y=>"ʸ",:Z=>"ᶻ") 
        
           for control in (:X, :Y, :Z) 
        
               for target in (:X, :Y, :Z) 
        
                   structname = Symbol(control,"C",target,"Gate") 
        
                   label = xyzsuplabeldict[control]*"C"*xyzsuplabeldict[target] 
        
                   declare = :(@withmetadata struct $structname <: AbstractTwoQubitGate end) 
        
                   defsymlabel = :(symbollabel(::$structname) = $label) 
        
                   instancename = Symbol(control,"C",target) 
        
                   definstance = :(const $instancename = $structname()) 
        
                   eval(declare) 
        
                   eval(defsymlabel) 
        
                   eval(definstance) 
        
               end 
        
           end

When defining the conversion in QuantumOptics, we are looping through each permutation of the two qubit gates and lining them up with the spin operators defined in QuantumOptics.

ytdHuang · 2025-06-09T06:27:31Z

@jeffwack @apkille

Hi, I'm one of the developers in QuantumToolbox.jl.

For your information, we have just merged a pull request (qutip/QuantumToolbox.jl#486) to implement copy method for our quantum objects.

This will be available in our next release v0.32.0, which is scheduled maybe next week.

ytdHuang · 2025-06-24T02:45:01Z

@jeffwack @apkille

Just an update to you, we have released QuantumToolbox v0.32 (see our ChangeLog)

apkille · 2025-07-16T23:34:18Z

@jeffwack what's the status on this PR? I can help you finish it if you want.

jeffwack · 2025-07-17T00:30:52Z

@apkille That sounds great to me! Apologies, I let this fall off my todo list. If you want to take this over that is fine by me :)

apkille · 2025-07-20T20:32:36Z

@Krastanov should be good to go for review!

Krastanov · 2025-07-21T12:55:30Z

looks good to merge once we figure out what the test failures are

we also might want to start having separate test runners for each extension, but this is beyond the scope of this PR

Krastanov

just marking it as an actual review:

downgrade test
changelog
some other failing tests that might just be flaky (but checking that any JET tests failurs are unrelated)

Feel free to merge without checking with me once these are resolved, or tag me if they are weird to deal with / unrelated.

apkille · 2025-07-21T17:45:15Z

@Krastanov the downgrade test is weird to me/I'm not sure how to deal with it, it looks like a project.toml issue with QuantumToolbox and SciMLOperators:

caused by: Unsatisfiable requirements detected for package SciMLOperators [c0aeaf25]:
 SciMLOperators [c0aeaf25] log:
 ├─possible versions are: 0.1.0-1.3.1 or uninstalled
 ├─restricted to versions 1.3.1 by an explicit requirement, leaving only versions: 1.3.1
 └─restricted by compatibility requirements with QuantumToolbox [6c2fb7c5] to versions: 0.3.0-0.4.0 — no versions left
   └─QuantumToolbox [6c2fb7c5] log:
     ├─possible versions are: 0.5.4-0.32.1 or uninstalled
     ├─restricted to versions 0.32.0 by QuantumSymbolics [efa7fd63], leaving only versions: 0.32.0 or uninstalled
     │ └─QuantumSymbolics [efa7fd63] log:
     │   ├─possible versions are: 0.4.12 or uninstalled
     │   └─QuantumSymbolics [efa7fd63] is fixed to version 0.4.12-dev
     └─restricted to versions * by project [db1e3c79], leaving only versions: 0.32.0
       └─project [db1e3c79] log:
         ├─possible versions are: 0.0.0 or uninstalled
         └─project [db1e3c79] is fixed to version 0.0.0

the other two CI tests look to be unrelated caching issues for QuantumOpticsRepr and CliffordRepr translations.

Krastanov · 2025-07-21T23:39:23Z

this seems related qutip/QuantumToolbox.jl#470

apkille · 2025-07-22T01:29:26Z

@Krastanov Shall we merge this and create issues for the failing tests and deal with them in future PRs? I can do that this week during JuliaCon.

Krastanov · 2025-07-22T02:08:28Z

I think this will be causing actual issues to some folks. I would not be surprised if this issue pops up in a lot of environments that use QuantumSavory.jl. I would prefer to wait at least for a comment from the QuantumToolbox folks, because this might be unfixable without their commitment, and I would prefer not to have a future PR removing this extension.

apkille · 2025-07-22T15:34:52Z

Ok, sounds good

start of QuantumToolboxExt

d903bfa

apkille added 4 commits July 19, 2025 18:27

Merge branch 'main' into jw

288c29c

bump QToolbox to v0.32.0

c9b6bef

recast some of Jeff's implementations

136e8d0

add QToolboxRepr tests

7bcdd7d

apkille requested a review from Krastanov July 20, 2025 20:32

apkille marked this pull request as ready for review July 20, 2025 20:32

Krastanov requested changes Jul 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

update changelog

81f3f90

Krastanov mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2025

CompatHelper: bump compat for SciMLOperators to 1, (keep existing compat) qutip/QuantumToolbox.jl#470

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

start of QuantumToolboxExt #121

start of QuantumToolboxExt #121

jeffwack commented May 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented May 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

apkille commented May 30, 2025

Uh oh!

ytdHuang commented Jun 9, 2025

Uh oh!

ytdHuang commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

jeffwack commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Krastanov commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Krastanov left a comment

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Krastanov commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Krastanov commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

start of QuantumToolboxExt #121

Are you sure you want to change the base?

start of QuantumToolboxExt #121

Conversation

jeffwack commented May 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented May 30, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

apkille commented May 30, 2025

Uh oh!

ytdHuang commented Jun 9, 2025

Uh oh!

ytdHuang commented Jun 24, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

jeffwack commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Krastanov commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Krastanov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

Krastanov commented Jul 21, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 22, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Krastanov commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

apkille commented Jul 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jeffwack commented May 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented May 30, 2025 •

edited

Loading

apkille commented Jul 22, 2025 •

edited

Loading