Replace qq auto with qq run

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

This choice comes from some internal discussions, the most recent one is qiboteam/xmind-diagrams#31 (comment)

Checklist:

• Reviewers confirm new code works as expected.
• Tests are passing.
• Coverage does not decrease.
• Documentation is updated.
• Compatibility with Qibo modules (Please edit this section if the current pull request is not compatible with the following branches).
  • Qibo: master
  • Qibolab: 0.1
  • Qibolab_platforms_qrc: main

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.30769% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.32%. Comparing base (39e5d3c) to head (1e6d06c).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/qibocal/cli/_base.py	91.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #993      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.33%   97.32%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         120      120              
  Lines        9747     9756       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits         9487     9495       +8     
- Misses        260      261       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.32% <92.30%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/qibocal/cli/run.py	96.15% <100.00%> (ø)
src/qibocal/cli/_base.py	92.40% <91.66%> (-0.46%)	⬇️

[Edoardo-Pedicillo]

@scarrazza do you think we can go on with this PR and update the Qibocal-paper before the submission?

[scarrazza]

Yes, I agree.

[andrea-pasquale]

Thanks @Edoardo-Pedicillo.
In theory we need to update the diagram that we have in the qibocal paper also here in the documenation, correct? Maybe it is worth waiting until the diagram is ready to merge the PR.

Also, perhaps we could add a log message when importing the library saying that qq auto has been renamed qq run? It could also makes sense to do it once we have a release I guess. I'm suggesting this to lower the confusion among users :)

[alecandido]

Also, perhaps we could add a log message when importing the library saying that qq auto has been renamed qq run? It could also makes sense to do it once we have a release I guess. I'm suggesting this to lower the confusion among users :)

I would exclude doing that at import time (it would appear also in any script not using the CLI), and I'm generally against warnings.

What I may support is to keep the qq auto subcommand, just to print a message telling the user to use qq run instead.

[andrea-pasquale]

What I may support is to keep the qq auto subcommand, just to print a message telling the user to use qq run instead.

This could work.