Skip to content

Conversation

@hash-worker
Copy link
Contributor

@hash-worker hash-worker bot commented Nov 30, 2025

Note: This PR body was truncated due to platform limits.

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Confidence
@vitest/coverage-istanbul (source) 3.2.4 -> 4.0.16 age confidence
vitest (source) 3.2.4 -> 4.0.16 age confidence

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.


Release Notes

vitest-dev/vitest (@​vitest/coverage-istanbul)

v4.0.16

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.15

Compare Source

   🚀 Experimental Features
   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.14

Compare Source

   🚀 Experimental Features
   🐞 Bug Fixes
   🏎 Performance
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.13

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
   🏎 Performance
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.12

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.11

Compare Source

   🚀 Experimental Features
   🏎 Performance
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.10

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.9

Compare Source

   🚀 Experimental Features
   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.8

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.7

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
   🏎 Performance
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.6

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.5

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
   🏎 Performance
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.4

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
   🏎 Performance
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.3

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.2

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.1

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.0

Compare Source

Vitest 4.0 is out!

To stay updated, read our blog post and check the migration guide.

   🚨 Breaking Changes
   🚀 Features

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "before 4am every weekday,every weekend" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Enabled.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about these updates again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR has been generated by Renovate Bot.

@hash-worker hash-worker bot enabled auto-merge November 30, 2025 14:12
@github-actions github-actions bot added area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/apps > hash* Affects HASH (a `hash-*` app) area/apps > hash-api Affects the HASH API (app) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team area/tests New or updated tests area/tests > integration New or updated integration tests area/apps labels Nov 30, 2025
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 30, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 58.89%. Comparing base (b6338db) to head (5f5eea6).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8129      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   58.90%   58.89%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1193     1193              
  Lines      112723   112723              
  Branches     5013     5013              
==========================================
- Hits        66394    66393       -1     
- Misses      45571    45572       +1     
  Partials      758      758              
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.32% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api 0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system 40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks 0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk 10.88% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack 90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec 84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net 96.14% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
rust.harpc-tower 66.80% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-types 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-wire-protocol 92.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec 72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api 2.89% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization 62.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store 25.61% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store 30.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning 47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation 83.45% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast 87.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest 46.65% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core 82.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics 72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval 68.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir 89.10% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir 88.18% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr 94.05% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.

@cursor
Copy link

cursor bot commented Dec 13, 2025

PR Summary

Upgrade test tooling to Vitest v4

  • Update vitest from 3.2.4 to 4.0.16 (one package uses 4.0.15) and @vitest/coverage-istanbul from 3.2.4 to 4.0.16 across multiple package.jsons
  • Refresh yarn.lock to reflect v4 ecosystem changes (new @vitest/* packages, updated deps like magicast, istanbul-reports, @jridgewell/*, obug, and removal/replacement of some v3-era entries)
  • No application code changes; only dependency/version updates

Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 5f5eea6. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.

"rimraf": "6.1.2",
"typescript": "5.9.3",
"vitest": "3.2.4"
"vitest": "4.0.15"
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bug: Peer dependency mismatch with @effect/vitest package

The @effect/vitest@0.27.0 package has a peer dependency on vitest: ^3.2.0, but vitest is being upgraded to 4.0.15 which does not satisfy this constraint. Multiple test files in this package import describe and it from @effect/vitest (e.g., JsonDecoder.test.ts, encode.test.ts). This version mismatch could cause test failures or runtime errors since major version changes typically include breaking API changes. The @effect/vitest package needs to be upgraded to a version compatible with vitest 4.x.

Additional Locations (1)

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

"@types/papaparse": "5.3.16",
"@types/sanitize-html": "2.16.0",
"@vitest/coverage-istanbul": "3.2.4",
"@vitest/coverage-istanbul": "4.0.16",
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bug: Version mismatch between vitest and @vitest/coverage-istanbul

This PR updates @vitest/coverage-istanbul to 4.0.16 in hash-ai-agent, but the package's vitest dependency (line 47) remains at 4.0.15. The @vitest/coverage-istanbul@4.0.16 has an exact peer dependency on vitest: 4.0.16. This creates a version mismatch that will produce npm/yarn peer dependency warnings and could cause subtle incompatibilities between the coverage tool and the test runner.

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002 $$28.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 260 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.822 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001 $$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$43.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 331 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$14.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526 $$24.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$30.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 205 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-27.823 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-81.710 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-47.057 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$3.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51 $$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$5.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107 $$4.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$4.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$3.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1 $$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.9 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25 $$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$3.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$3.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$39.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 167 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$77.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 380 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$44.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$46.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 250 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$55.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 261 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$41.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 168 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.843 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$414 \mathrm{ms} \pm 819 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.409 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$94.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 474 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$85.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 391 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.893 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$287 \mathrm{ms} \pm 853 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$15.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$18.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.049 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.024 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.507 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$15.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.580 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$22.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 132 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.851 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/block/v/1 $$31.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 304 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$30.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.032 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$30.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.622 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$30.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 330 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.051 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$30.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 341 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.789 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$31.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 302 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.477 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$29.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 259 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.564 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$30.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 332 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$30.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 334 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.602 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$8.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.787 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$46.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 219 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.794 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$96.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 401 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.658 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$53.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 408 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.749 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$61.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 342 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.127 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$70.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 371 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.494 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$76.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 347 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.600 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$52.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 386 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$78.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 373 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.269 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$58.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 266 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.810 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$66.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.876 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$65.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 292 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.280 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$67.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 384 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.099 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$138 \mathrm{ms} \pm 501 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$135 \mathrm{ms} \pm 605 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.744 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$41.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 178 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-59.878 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$554 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.09 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.903 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area/apps > hash* Affects HASH (a `hash-*` app) area/apps > hash-api Affects the HASH API (app) area/apps area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) area/tests > integration New or updated integration tests area/tests New or updated tests type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants