Consider handling rzz validation for parametrized angles

[yaelbh]

rzz angle is allowed only in the range [0, pi/2].
If a user writes rzz(-1, qubit) or rzz(3, qubit) (i.e., the angle is a number) then our ISA validation will correctly fail.
But, if the user writes rzz(param, qubit), where param is a qiskit.circuit.Parameter, and assigns a negative (or greater than pi/2) value to the parameter - this will not be caught by the validation process, and therefore will fail much later in the stack.

[yaelbh]

See Slack thread: https://ibm-quantumcomputing.slack.com/archives/C06NWM5FUKC/p1730189009542039

[yaelbh]

I want to change the signature of is_isa_circuit, such that it receives a pub instead of a circuit, but I don't know if it's considered to be an API break that requires deprecation.

@jyu00 @kevinsung @mberna Does it require deprecation?

To be on the safe side, for now I'll leave ISA validation unchanged. I'll add two new functions, validate_rzz_pub and is_rzz_pub.

[kevinsung]

I don't really work on this repository, perhaps you mean to ping @kt474 .

[jyu00]

I want to change the signature of is_isa_circuit, such that it receives a pub instead of a circuit, but I don't know if it's considered to be an API break that requires deprecation.

@jyu00 @kevinsung @mberna Does it require deprecation?

To be on the safe side, for now I'll leave ISA validation unchanged. I'll add two new functions, validate_rzz_pub and is_rzz_pub.

It's not an API break since is_isa_circuit is technically a private method (i.e. it's not documented in API reference).

[yaelbh]

Following #2035, we should also take into account parameter expressions.