Catalyst supports dynamic_one_shot

[vincentmr]

Before submitting

Please complete the following checklist when submitting a PR:

• All new features must include a unit test.
  If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add a test to the
  test directory!

• All new functions and code must be clearly commented and documented.
  If you do make documentation changes, make sure that the docs build and
  render correctly by running make docs.

• Ensure that the test suite passes, by running make test.

• Add a new entry to the doc/releases/changelog-dev.md file, summarizing the
  change, and including a link back to the PR.

• The PennyLane source code conforms to
  PEP8 standards.
  We check all of our code against Pylint.
  To lint modified files, simply pip install pylint, and then
  run pylint pennylane/path/to/file.py.

When all the above are checked, delete everything above the dashed
line and fill in the pull request template.

---

Context:
Catalyst does not currently support hardware-like execution for dynamic circuits.

Description of the Change:
Modify parse_native_mid_circuit_measurements to handle measurements with a broadcast dimension.
Add special handling of terminal measurements of MCMs.

Benefits:

Possible Drawbacks:

Related GitHub Issues:
[sc-60756]

[github-actions]

Hello. You may have forgotten to update the changelog!
Please edit doc/releases/changelog-dev.md with:

• A one-to-two sentence description of the change. You may include a small working example for new features.
• A link back to this PR.
• Your name (or GitHub username) in the contributors section.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.66%. Comparing base (511efa1) to head (8e1b4fc).
Report is 247 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5766      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.66%   99.66%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         415      415              
  Lines       39703    39489     -214     
==========================================
- Hits        39571    39356     -215     
- Misses        132      133       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[dime10]

Looks good, although unfortunately between all the squeezing, stacking, list packing and unpacking, and without already knowing the expected data format in different places I found it quite hard to review those kinds of changes and will mostly have to trust you about them 😅

[vincentmr]

Looks good, although unfortunately between all the squeezing, stacking, list packing and unpacking, and without already knowing the expected data format in different places I found it quite hard to review those kinds of changes and will mostly have to trust you about them 😅

Right, sorry about that. I think once all MCM-related PRs go in, this will be a good candidate for refactoring.

[mudit2812]

Looks great so far! The failing CI seems problematic, and I left a few comments about the changes to the transform as well.

[mudit2812]

Looks great, just one stylistic optional suggestion. Other than that, happy to approve once code coverage is passing.

[vincentmr]

Other than that, happy to approve once code coverage is passing.

Code coverage will not pass until the CI can pull a Catalyst version supporting the one-shot mode. So should we force merge and come back to it once the Catalyst support is out?

[mudit2812]

Other than that, happy to approve once code coverage is passing.

Code coverage will not pass until the CI can pull a Catalyst version supporting the one-shot mode. So should we force merge and come back to it once the Catalyst support is out?

I'd prefer to avoid force merging.

You can add # pragma: no cover to the uncovered branches along with a TODO to remove them after the catalyst PR is merged. Probably worth creating a story for the follow up as well and adding it to the P0 epic.

[mudit2812]

Left a comment about using # pragma: no cover to silence the coverage errors. An alternative would be to mock qml.compiler.active to always return True and use the mocked function in unit tests.

All other changes look good to me and I'm happy to approve once this coversation is resolved.

[vincentmr]

Thanks @mudit2812 . I'll go with # pragma: no cover for now since the tests are already written and ready to cover once the Catalyst support comes in.

[dime10]

Looks great, just a couple of minor things:

[dime10]

Happy to approve 💯