Solves Issue #1316: Implement an option to print out instructions in the null device

[smml1996]

Context: The PennyLane plugin should have an Boolean option print_instructions (other names can also be proposed) with a default False value. This option must forwarded to the C++ device constructor. In the runtime plugin, the QuantumDevice should be able to print out the instructions when the option is set to True:

Description of the Change: The PennyLane plugin now has a boolean option print_instructions with a default value False.
If this option is set to True and we have generated the intermediate code using a null device, then executing the circuit prints out the instructions mentioned in Issue #1316 .

Benefits: allows to visualize and confirm the instructions we have called in a circuit that uses the null device. We can now print instructions by simply compiling the circuit and by passing the flag set set to True (E.g. jitted_circ = qjit(circ_circuit, print_instructions=False)).

Possible Drawbacks: Printing some matrices can take a lot of space.

Related GitHub Issues: #1316

[dime10]

Hi @smml1996, thank you for submitting your PR!

Overall this looks really nice, good work! I left a few review comments below.

Btw, don't forget to include your name as a contributor in the changelog. This PR can be considered a new feature.

[smml1996]

Hi @smml1996, thank you for submitting your PR!

Overall this looks really nice, good work! I left a few review comments below.

Btw, don't forget to include your name as a contributor in the changelog. This PR can be considered a new feature.

Awesome!! I added it this commit b3df667 (and fixed a missing line here 4c82c8d)

[smml1996]

I am not sure how to fix this issue from CodeFactor. I do not see any blank line at the end of the block code. How can I fix it?

[dime10]

I am not sure how to fix this issue from CodeFactor. I do not see any blank line at the end of the block code. How can I fix it?

Oh weird, sometimes CodeFactor is bugged. You can ignore it! : )

[dime10]

This PR looks fantastic! There is one open comment, other than that once the merge conflict is resolved I'll approve the CI run to confirm tests are passing and we can consider this PR completed 💪

[smml1996]

I have realized that for some reason I was not handling properly zero coefficients in the real part for the string representation of complex numbers. I have fixed it here 5ea6b8e

[dime10]

I have realized that for some reason I was not handling properly zero coefficients in the real part for the string representation of complex numbers. I have fixed it here 5ea6b8e

Nice! Are you able to resolve the merge conflict so we can test the CI ? :)

[smml1996]

I have realized that for some reason I was not handling properly zero coefficients in the real part for the string representation of complex numbers. I have fixed it here 5ea6b8e

Nice! Are you able to resolve the merge conflict so we can test the CI ? :)

Sure!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 3.80623% with 278 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.29%. Comparing base (1472b4d) to head (a5f7c30).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...e/lib/backend/null_qubit/InstructionStrBuilder.hpp	0.00%	136 Missing ⚠️
runtime/lib/backend/null_qubit/NullQubit.hpp	0.00%	85 Missing ⚠️
runtime/tests/Test_InstructionStrBuilder.cpp	0.00%	57 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1346      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.79%   78.29%   -2.51%     
==========================================
  Files          73       75       +2     
  Lines        8104     8372     +268     
  Branches      839      893      +54     
==========================================
+ Hits         6548     6555       +7     
- Misses       1502     1763     +261     
  Partials       54       54              

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

[dime10]

Thank you @smml1996! You can consider this PR completed 🎉

[smml1996]

Thank you @smml1996! You can consider this PR completed 🎉

Awesome!!! I see the coverage test did not passed though. Should I try to improve my tests?

[dime10]

I see the coverage test did not passed though. Should I try to improve my tests?

That's because your tests call the string builder functionality as unit tests, which is great! It does leave the lines uncovered in the device itself (if(print) { ... }), but from side I'm happy with the tests as they are.

[smml1996]

I see the coverage test did not passed though. Should I try to improve my tests?

That's because your tests call the string builder functionality as unit tests, which is great! It does leave the lines uncovered in the device itself (if(print) { ... }), but from side I'm happy with the tests as they are.

Ahh ok! great then! 🥳