Revise test qobj headers in result sims 87

[jwoehr]

Summary

Details and comments

[jwoehr]

Answers #87

[diego-plan9]

Thanks @jwoehr ! It's looking good - can you also take the chance to revise test_qobj_headers_in_result_devices? It should probably end up containing the same lines of code (except for the simulator=False).

[jwoehr]

editing and testing, just a moment ...

[jwoehr]

(That should have bombed, I think it has been skipped as a "slow test")

[diego-plan9]

(That should have bombed, I think it has been skipped as a "slow test")

Yes - just in case you have not encountered it before, locally you can enable the running of slow tests via an environment variable QISKIT_TESTS=run_slow. However, note that they are indeed slow (the cause of slowness is that they use the real devices, which involves having to wait in the queue for minutes in most cases) - I'd recommend using it with caution (as in, only using it for launching a particular test, not the full suite by default).

[jwoehr]

I'll try that now for good luck, since we changed a slow test.

[jwoehr]

Well, that was interesting running the slow tests. The tests I have edited ran okay, but another one failed:

======================================================================
FAIL: test_run_device (test.ibmq.test_ibmq_job.TestIBMQJob)
Test running in a real device.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/jax/work/QISKit/DEV/qiskit-terra/qiskit/test/decorators.py", line 72, in _wrapper
    return func(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/home/jax/work/QISKit/DEV/qiskit-terra/qiskit/test/decorators.py", line 178, in _wrapper
    return decorated_func(self, *args, **kwargs)
  File "/home/jax/work/QISKit/DEV/qiskit-ibmq-provider/test/ibmq/test_ibmq_job.py", line 96, in test_run_device
    self.assertDictAlmostEqual(counts_qx, counts_ex, shots * 0.1)
AssertionError: ('10': 208 != 0), ('11': 278 != 512.0), ('01': 135 != 0), ('00': 403 != 512.0) within 102.4 delta

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[diego-plan9]

Thanks @jwoehr ! Also thanks for the note about the assertion failing - some of the slow tests might have fallen a bit out of sync, they will be revised if needed during #69