Minor fixes in VZ protocol

[andrea-pasquale]

Closes #1260
Here is a report: http://login.qrccluster.com:9000/QWgaFRHzTN6Cc7oVR7I8yw==/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.53086% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 91.94%. Comparing base (135aa58) to head (d6dba5f).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ibocal/protocols/two_qubit_interaction/optimize.py	97.01%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1261   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.94%   91.94%           
=======================================
  Files         147      147           
  Lines       11581    11588    +7     
=======================================
+ Hits        10648    10655    +7     
  Misses        933      933           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	91.94% <97.53%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...al/protocols/two_qubit_interaction/snz_optimize.py	99.34% <ø> (ø)
...ocols/two_qubit_interaction/snz_optimize_t_idle.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
..._qubit_interaction/snz_optimize_t_idle_vs_t_tot.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...c/qibocal/protocols/two_qubit_interaction/utils.py	96.55% <100.00%> (+0.25%)	⬆️
...rotocols/two_qubit_interaction/virtual_z_phases.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/qibocal/update.py	90.35% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
...ibocal/protocols/two_qubit_interaction/optimize.py	98.81% <97.01%> (+1.22%)	⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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.

[alecandido]

Isn't it possible to standardize the usage, and keep it just one in the end?

I see that before was a record array. And, since it has proved being inconvenient, now Qibocal is more or less to regular arrays. Which is certainly reasonable[*].

But, then, why not just transitioning everything to regular arrays? At least in related places, such that we avoid these kinds of forks.

[*]: We may discuss why it has been inconvenient, which are instead the advantages, and whether it is worth to attempt retaining them, changing instead something else. But I assume you already did this assessment, more or less in depth. So, fine, we can certainly go back to regular arrays - if nothing else, just because of simplicity. Which is a good motivation

[andrea-pasquale]

I'm planning to do that as well. The SNZ protocols are still using recarrays.

[andrea-pasquale]

Done in #1268

[alecandido]

Leftover print?

[alecandido]

Leftover or intended?

[andrea-pasquale]

Yeah this was used for debugging as well. I will fix it.

[RoyStegeman]

@scarrazza while we didn't carefully review this, the state of main is also unknown and presumably this is an improvement. Hence it probably makes sense to merge this branch, benefitting from what Andrea did here, rather than to work on top of current main.

[scarrazza]

@RoyStegeman please go ahead.