Add is_pseudo_unitary

[harshvardhan-pandey]

Description

Added feature to check if a matrix is pseudo unitary (in regards to Issue 767).

Changes

• Added is_pseudo_unitary
• Added test_is_pseudo_unitary
• Updated matrix_props/_init.py

Checklist

Before marking your PR ready for review, make sure you checked the following locally. If this is your first PR, you might be notified of some workflow failures after a maintainer has approved the workflow jobs to be run on your PR.

Additional information is available in the documentation.

• Use ruff for errors related to code style and formatting.
• Verify all previous and newly added unit tests pass in pytest.
• Check the documentation build does not lead to any failures. Sphinx build can be checked locally for any failures related to your PR
• Use linkcheck to check for broken links in the documentation
• Use doctest to verify the examples in the function docstrings work as expected.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.9%. Comparing base (4a8116e) to head (b9d7ef5).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #993   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    97.9%   97.9%           
======================================
  Files         170     171    +1     
  Lines        3328    3340   +12     
  Branches      728     731    +3     
======================================
+ Hits         3260    3272   +12     
  Misses         44      44           
  Partials       24      24           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[vprusso]

I'll approve this, but I will away @purva-thakre 's review as well which may likely be next week sometime. Thanks for your contribution, @harshvardhan-pandey , and looking forward to seeing more of your work!

[vprusso]

Ah, one thing I noticed is to request that you please add a test to cover all of the branches in the function. You can refer to the code-cov report for where the missing coverage is:

[harshvardhan-pandey]

@vprusso I did update the issue of code coverage in a later commit. Though I don't know why the coverage percentage is still the same. Could you just confirm if there is still an issue on my end or if it takes some time to update?

[vprusso]

@vprusso I did update the issue of code coverage in a later commit. Though I don't know why the coverage percentage is still the same. Could you just confirm if there is still an issue on my end or if it takes some time to update?

Hmm, that's interesting, yes, I do see your tests for the lines in question. I believe you're correct and this is likely okay, but I'll wait for @purva-thakre to confirm when she has time. Thanks for pointing that out!