(1/2) Combine Pauli measurements and postselection

[ddddddanni]

I split this #7492 giant PR into smaller pieces for easier review.
This PR:

1. Adds a CircuitToPauliStringsParameters class which supports postselection_symmetries.
2. Modify the validation method
3. Allows measure_pauli_strings to take CircuitToPauliStringsParameters as a input.

[eliottrosenberg]

This PR doesn't actually apply the postselection, correct? If so, we should raise a NotImplementedError if the user tries to use postselection symmetries.

[ddddddanni]

This PR doesn't actually apply the postselection, correct? If so, we should raise a NotImplementedError if the user tries to use postselection symmetries.

Done!

[eliottrosenberg]

One small nit, otherwise LGTM. Thanks!

[eliottrosenberg]

Can we have this default to an empty list? That way users don't need to enter anything for postselection_symmetries if they don't want to postselect.

[NoureldinYosri]

LGTM%nits

[NoureldinYosri]

since this is a frozen class, use tuple instead

[mhucka]

@ddddddanni Thank you for this work. For planning purposes, could you let us know what the status of this is? It looks like it was approved and what remains is resolving some conflicts and minor nits. Is that correct?

[ddddddanni]

@ddddddanni Thank you for this work. For planning purposes, could you let us know what the status of this is? It looks like it was approved and what remains is resolving some conflicts and minor nits. Is that correct?

Hey Mike, thanks for checking!! I’m actually holding off on this until #7760 is merged. Since #7760 adds more support for calculating Pauli expectations, I want to land that first to keep the sequence of changes logical. Once that is submitted, I will immediately resolve the conflicts and nits here.

[mhucka]

Got it. Thanks!

[mhucka]

@ddddddanni Thanks for your patience! #7760 was merged recently, so it sounds like we may be ready for this PR too, whenever you get a chance to look at the pesky merge conflicts. (No pressure; just going around and checking on all PRs.)

[ddddddanni]

@ddddddanni Thanks for your patience! #7760 was merged recently, so it sounds like we may be ready for this PR too, whenever you get a chance to look at the pesky merge conflicts. (No pressure; just going around and checking on all PRs.)

Sure!!! There are lots of conflicts I need to resolve ORZ, I will have it ready by this week!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.62%. Comparing base (e5173b7) to head (bb68a8d).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7746   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.62%   99.62%           
=======================================
  Files        1104     1104           
  Lines       99325    99374   +49     
=======================================
+ Hits        98949    98999   +50     
+ Misses        376      375    -1     

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.