Lint rule: When qubit reuse is not supported, prefer MResetZ over M

[minestarks]

We should add a rule to the linter that suggests that calls to M are replaced by MResetZ when the currently selected target's capabilities don't include QubitReuse.

use q = Qubit();
H(q);

// When Profile=Unrestricted, the qubit is reused
// When Profile=Base, this allocates a new hardware qubit
// Using MResetZ would make the behavior less ambiguous
let r = M(q);

Playground link

In this code, the linter could display a warning under M to the effect of "the currently chosen target does not support qubit use after measurement, prefer MResetZ".

---

CONTRIBUTORS PLEASE READ

Getting started

Welcome! Please take a look through our README to orient yourself in the repo and find instructions on how to build.

For this issue you'll want to have a working knowledge of Rust and compilers.

For documentation on how to add lints, see:
https://github.com/microsoft/qsharp/blob/main/compiler/qsc_linter/src/lib.rs

For examples of existing lints, see:

qsharp/compiler/qsc_linter/src/lints/ast.rs

Lines 10 to 12 in ed2a8fc

	(DivisionByZero, LintLevel::Error, "attempt to divide by zero", "division by zero will fail at runtime"),
	(NeedlessParens, LintLevel::Allow, "unnecessary parentheses", "remove the extra parentheses for clarity"),
	(RedundantSemicolons, LintLevel::Warn, "redundant semicolons", "remove the redundant semicolons"),

qsharp/compiler/qsc_linter/src/lints/hir.rs

Line 8 in ed2a8fc

(Placeholder, LintLevel::Allow, "this a placeholder", "remove after addding the first HIR lint"),

Testing

You can demonstrate that the lint works by running the playground locally (see the code example in the issue description).

Please add unit tests verifying the functionality you implemented.

Before you submit a pull request please run python ./build.py to ensure the project builds cleanly. See README for details.

Reviews

Once you have published your PR, the codeowners will automatically get tagged and we'll review shortly.

If you need clarification on an issue please tag @minestarks with your questions.

[Manvi-Agrawal]

@minestarks

• Do you think its worth adding similar lint for MeasureEachZ?
• On a related node I was thinking if its worth adding reset variants for others namely Measure and MeasureAllZ.
• Also, I got a bit stumped by knowing that MeasureInteger ends up resetting the states of qubits :) Maybe rename? Deprecate and rename?
  
  

[minestarks]

Good questions - this originally came from @swernli so I'll let him weigh in.

[swernli]

HI @Manvi-Agrawal, I definitely have thoughts on these questions.

• Do you think its worth adding similar lint for MeasureEachZ?

Yes, definitely. MResetEachZ should be preferred over MeasureEachZ.

• On a related node I was thinking if its worth adding reset variants for others namely Measure and MeasureAllZ.

These two are a little special... they support passing an array of qubits but will return a single measurement result, effectively doing a parity measurement that may only partially collapse the state of the qubits in the array. Given that, these are fine when they have multiple inputs but when the input is an array with a single qubit they would be better replaced. I'm not sure how easy it is to differentiate that in lints (array sizes are not known at compile time) so it might be better left for a follow up refinement.

• Also, I got a bit stumped by knowing that MeasureInteger ends up resetting the states of qubits :) Maybe rename? Deprecate and rename?

That is mentioned in the remarks section of the docs on that API, though it could be more prominently featured in the summary. To have a non-resetting version you could use something like ResultArrayAsInt(MeasureEachZ(qubits)) so at least it's not an impossible thing, and that might be worth calling out in the doc comments on MeasureInteger.