Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add hardware benchmark to GitHub Action pipeline #115

Closed
jordandsullivan opened this issue Dec 3, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Add hardware benchmark to GitHub Action pipeline #115

jordandsullivan opened this issue Dec 3, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
feature New feature or request

Comments

@jordandsullivan
Copy link
Collaborator

jordandsullivan commented Dec 3, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Our Github Actions pipeline for benchmarking currently only includes the gate-based benchmarks, not the ones running on hardware.

Describe the solution you'd like
We want to include the hardware benchmarks as in #58 and more to come as part of our standard benchmarks.

Describe alternatives you've considered
One argument against could be the long queue times, but this will likely mean we need to be very intentional about how they get submitted and timeouts in the build.

Additional context

@jordandsullivan jordandsullivan added the feature New feature or request label Dec 3, 2024
@jordandsullivan jordandsullivan modified the milestone: 0.3.0 Dec 6, 2024
@jordandsullivan jordandsullivan changed the title Add hardware benchmark to AWS CodeBuild Add hardware benchmark to GitHub Action pipeline Dec 10, 2024
@jordandsullivan jordandsullivan self-assigned this Dec 10, 2024
@jordandsullivan jordandsullivan added this to the 0.4.0 milestone Jan 2, 2025
@jordandsullivan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Note: this is one we only want to include in our launch version if UCC is performing competitively to Qiskit as per #83

@jordandsullivan jordandsullivan removed this from the 0.4.0 milestone Jan 7, 2025
@jordandsullivan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Want to revisit this issue now that #161 is merged in and routing should be improved.

@jordandsullivan
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Because this has queuing and cost associated with it, we do not currently intend to include it in our automatically running pipeline.

@jordandsullivan jordandsullivan closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jan 18, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant