Add boolean support to cirq_google protos#7177
Conversation
dstrain115
requested review from
a team,
verult,
vtomole and
wcourtney
as code owners
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #7177 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.13% 98.13% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 1097 1097
Lines 95658 95662 +4
==========================================
+ Hits 93876 93878 +2
- Misses 1782 1784 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| RepeatedDouble double_values = 6; | ||
| RepeatedString string_values = 7; | ||
| tunits.Value value_with_unit = 8; | ||
| bool bool_value = 9; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: can we move this field next to bool_values for better discoverability in the future. (I'm aware this convention hasn't been done before.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think that's a good idea. I think it's generally better to keep things in order of field id unless there's a really good reason. Otherwise, it gets more confusing to add fields.
| msg = v2.program_pb2.Arg() if out is None else out | ||
|
|
||
| if isinstance(value, FLOAT_TYPES): | ||
| if isinstance(value, bool): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
on line 146, there is a check for np.bool_, should that be included in this check?
* Add boolean support to cirq_google protos * Add np.bool. * Fix type issue.
2 participants
No description provided.