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

Inputs to Session and Batch should order of Sampler and Estimator #1681

Open
nonhermitian opened this issue May 15, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@nonhermitian
Copy link
Contributor

What is the expected feature or enhancement?

The inputs to Session and Batch list the session as the first arg followed by backend:

class Session(service=None, backend=None, max_time=None)

class Batch(service=None, backend=None, max_time=None)

which is the opposite of Sampler and Estimator:

class SamplerV2(backend=None, session=None, options=None)

class EstimatorV2(backend=None, session=None, options=None)

It would be nice to have a unified calling order. In particular, the sampler and estimator were written to have backend first because it makes the code cleaner because users are not required to pass backend=backend into the init. The Session and Batch should follow suit.

Acceptance criteria
The kwargs orders are unified to match the sampler and Estimator ordering.

@nonhermitian nonhermitian added the enhancement New feature or request label May 15, 2024
@jyu00
Copy link
Collaborator

jyu00 commented Jul 3, 2024

I think we should just deprecate passing a string for backend. Today you can do Session(backend="ibm_osaka"), which would actually call QiskitRuntimeService() (i.e. use your default account setting) under the cover. This can be a surprise to people if the default channel or h/g/p is not what they want to use.

If we force people to pass in a backend object instead of a string, then service won't be necessary, and this issue would also go away.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants