Tests: jobs status and inner logic by nm727 · Pull Request #186 · ColibrITD-SAS/mpqp

nm727 · 2026-02-16T20:29:15Z

No description provided.

Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:04:14Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+class TestJobStatus:
+    def test_all_statuses_exist(self):
+        expected = {"INIT", "QUEUED", "RUNNING", "CANCELLED", "ERROR", "DONE"}
+        actual = {s.name for s in JobStatus}
+        assert expected == actual
+
+    def test_terminal_statuses(self):
+        """DONE, ERROR, CANCELLED should be considered terminal."""
+        terminal = {JobStatus.DONE, JobStatus.ERROR, JobStatus.CANCELLED}
+        non_terminal = {JobStatus.INIT, JobStatus.QUEUED, JobStatus.RUNNING}
+        assert terminal.isdisjoint(non_terminal)


unsure about the usefulness of these tests

here we can remove the tests, no need.

Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:05:18Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+        job = Job(JobType.SAMPLE, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR, measure)
+        assert job.measure is not None
+        # measure should be deep-copied
+        assert job.measure is not measure


Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:07:01Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+        circuit = QCircuit(2)
+        job = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        job.status = JobStatus.DONE
+        # Should not raise — no remote lookup attempted for local device


the mentioned feature is not tested IMO

Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:08:42Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+        circuit = QCircuit(2)
+        job = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        job.status = JobStatus.RUNNING
+        assert job._status == JobStatus.RUNNING


not a super fan of testing setters and init unless they have complex behavior. It adds testing time, makes the overall architecture harder to change, and doesn't really add useful securities to the testing suite

Agree here we avoid asserting private/internal fields in tests

Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:22:18Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+    def test_terminal_status_no_remote_check(self):
+        """Once a job reaches a terminal state, the status property should
+        return immediately for any device."""
+        circuit = QCircuit(2)
+        job = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        for terminal in [JobStatus.DONE, JobStatus.ERROR, JobStatus.CANCELLED]:
+            job.status = terminal
+            assert job.status == terminal


Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:23:38Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+class TestJobEquality:
+    def test_equal_jobs(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit([H(0), CNOT(0, 1)])
+        job1 = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        job2 = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        assert job1 == job2
+
+    def test_different_type(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit([H(0)])
+        measure = BasisMeasure([0], shots=100)
+        job1 = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        job2 = Job(JobType.SAMPLE, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR, measure)
+        assert job1 != job2
+
+    def test_different_device(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit([H(0)])
+        job1 = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        job2 = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR_STATEVECTOR)
+        assert job1 != job2
+
+    def test_different_circuit(self):
+        circ1 = QCircuit([H(0)])
+        circ2 = QCircuit([X(0)])
+        job1 = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circ1, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        job2 = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circ2, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        assert job1 != job2
+
+    def test_not_equal_to_non_job(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit(2)
+        job = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        assert job != "not a job"
+        assert job != 42
+        assert job != None


maybe we can use a pytest.mark.parametrize for these tests ?

Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:25:48Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+    def test_repr_no_measure(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit(2)
+        job = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        r = repr(job)
+        assert "Job(" in r
+        assert "STATE_VECTOR" in r
+        assert "AER_SIMULATOR" in r
+
+    def test_repr_with_measure(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit([H(0)])
+        measure = BasisMeasure([0], shots=100)
+        job = Job(JobType.SAMPLE, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR, measure)
+        r = repr(job)
+        assert "BasisMeasure" in r
+
+    def test_to_dict_keys(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit(2)
+        job = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR)
+        d = job.to_dict()
+        assert "job_type" in d
+        assert "circuit" in d
+        assert "device" in d
+        assert "measure" in d
+        assert "id" in d
+        assert "status" in d
+


these tests look weird to me, why not testing the whole repr at this point ?

Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:26:41Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+        circuit = QCircuit([Rx(theta, 0)])
+        job = generate_job(circuit, IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR, {theta: 1.5})
+        # After substitution the circuit should have no free variables
+        assert len(job.circuit.variables()) == 0


Henri-ColibrITD · 2026-02-17T16:29:58Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

In general, I like what you did, but I think the important thing to test in this file is mostly the remote thing, we can merge this once you reply to/take into account the comments, but the biggest issue remains :(

Also, a general question: what are the classes for ? I never used them so I'm curious :)

nm727 · 2026-02-17T20:49:51Z

@Henri-ColibrITD Thank you for the thorough review! I addressed most of your concerns in this commit and attempted at the remote tests.

As for the test classes, they are mainly for grouping, pytest uses them to namespace the -v output, so instead of seeing:

test_local_device_never_polls PASSED
test_no_measurement_gives_state_vector PASSED

you see:

TestRemoteStatus::test_local_device_never_polls PASSED
TestGenerateJob::test_no_measurement_gives_state_vector PASSED

It makes it easier to see which area failed when scanning test output. Totally optional, just a small structural choice to keep things organized as the suite grows

MoHermes · 2026-03-03T14:42:52Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+    def test_construction_with_different_devices(self):
+        circuit = QCircuit(2)
+        devices = [
+            IBMDevice.AER_SIMULATOR,
+            ATOSDevice.MYQLM_PYLINALG,
+            AWSDevice.BRAKET_LOCAL_SIMULATOR,
+            GOOGLEDevice.CIRQ_LOCAL_SIMULATOR,
+        ]
+        for device in devices:
+            job = Job(JobType.STATE_VECTOR, circuit, device)
+            assert job.device == device


I would remove this test, just looping through devices to assert job.device is device

MoHermes · 2026-03-03T14:44:05Z

tests/execution/test_job.py

+    def test_all_types_exist(self):
+        expected = {"STATE_VECTOR", "SAMPLE", "OBSERVABLE"}
+        actual = {t.name for t in JobType}
+        assert expected == actual


remove this one, doesn't test behaviour

Nour-Mustapha and others added 2 commits February 16, 2026 21:27

Add execution tests

0db7f0f

chore: Files formated

febe316

nm727 mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2026

Second part #183

Closed

Henri-ColibrITD reviewed Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Henri-ColibrITD requested a review from hJaffaliColibritd February 17, 2026 16:30

Nour-Mustapha and others added 2 commits February 17, 2026 21:11

addressed major pr concerns

e30ff32

chore: Files formated

832307e

Henri-ColibrITD changed the title ~~Add tests execution~~ Tests: jobs status and inner logic Feb 18, 2026

Henri-ColibrITD requested a review from MoHermes February 27, 2026 10:19

MoHermes reviewed Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

nm727 commented Feb 16, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MoHermes Mar 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nm727 commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MoHermes Mar 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

MoHermes Mar 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

MoHermes Mar 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading