[acl-cqc]

Modelled on Quantinuum/tket2#2144 but without the offline generation or Hugrs from older versions of guppy: the idea is to detect if we change guppy in a way that breaks optimization.

The other idea was that we'd use standard OptimizationLevel.Default code already in guppy to drive the optimizer, rather than tket2's test_guppy_opt.py having its own code to drive what optimizations to do, which I expected to largely duplicate guppylang's OptimizationLevel. Turns out tket2 uses pytket CliffordSimp rather than the RemoveRedundancies used by OptimizationLevel.Default, but in many cases either works, so there is some difference vs the tket2 tests here.

[github-actions]

Bencher Report

Project	guppylang
Branch	acl/test_optimization
Testbed	Linux

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	hugr_bytes	Benchmark Result bytes x 1e3 (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary bytes x 1e3 (Limit %)	hugr_nodes	Benchmark Result nodes (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary nodes (Limit %)
tests/benchmarks/test_big_array.py::test_big_array_compile	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	59.84 x 1e3 (0.00%) Baseline: 59.84 x 1e3	60.44 x 1e3 (99.01%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	4,514.00 (0.00%) Baseline: 4,514.00	4,559.14 (99.01%)
tests/benchmarks/test_ctrl_flow.py::test_many_ctrl_flow_compile	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	26.87 x 1e3 (0.00%) Baseline: 26.87 x 1e3	27.14 x 1e3 (99.01%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	1,182.00 (0.00%) Baseline: 1,182.00	1,193.82 (99.01%)
tests/benchmarks/test_queue_push_pop.py::test_queue_push_benchmark_compile	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	6.70 x 1e3 (0.00%) Baseline: 6.70 x 1e3	6.77 x 1e3 (99.01%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	279.00 (0.00%) Baseline: 279.00	281.79 (99.01%)
tests/benchmarks/test_queue_push_pop.py::test_queue_push_pop_benchmark_compile	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	9.22 x 1e3 (0.00%) Baseline: 9.22 x 1e3	9.31 x 1e3 (99.01%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	371.00 (0.00%) Baseline: 371.00	374.71 (99.01%)

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

1 warning

⚠️ 7 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

✅ 11 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing acl/test_optimization (647b1a3) with main (698b9a4)}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.40%. Comparing base (dfaffd9) to head (647b1a3).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2522      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.36%   93.40%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         167      167              
  Lines       16947    17050     +103     
==========================================
+ Hits        15823    15926     +103     
  Misses       1124     1124              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[acl-cqc]

Thoughts here? I was a bit unclear about why tests/test_optimization.py wasn't already in tests/integration/...