Fixing MS gate inverse is not implemented correctly (Issue 7432)

[radumarg]

Fixing MS gate inverse is not implemented correctly (Issue #7432)

The MS gate has a theta entanglement angle parameter in it's signature, with a 0.25 default value. The problems that need to be corrected here is that when implementing the inverse MS gate the theta parameter is not applied, and instead implicitly its default value is being used when specifying inverse of MS in terms of MS.

Code and tests were updated.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.68%. Comparing base (e34da07) to head (3091e5e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7466   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.68%   98.68%           
=======================================
  Files        1092     1092           
  Lines       96546    96546           
=======================================
+ Hits        95272    95275    +3     
+ Misses       1274     1271    -3     

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[radumarg]

There is one failing test but this is not related to changes in this PR.

[mhucka]

There is one failing test but this is not related to changes in this PR.

Seems to have been a glitch. I reran the failing test and it succeeded.

[mhucka]

@radumarg Thank you for your work! I'd like to offer some quick feedback for best practices involving pull requests:

• Could you make the title more descriptive? It would help future readers and the release notes if the title could be something along the lines of, for example, "Fix # 7432: info info info" where the info info info briefly describes the problem this fixes. (Yes, people can read the issue, but it saves time for people scanning long lists of PRs.)

• In the description of the issue, instead of "Fixing issue # 7432", it would be helpful to provide a summary of how the PR fixes the issue. Just the key points, like what was the core of the problem and what approach you took (and why).

[radumarg]

@mhucka this PR is ready for review