SRE-898: Allowlist GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 in the Dependency Review preflight

[claude]

Requested by Ciaran Morinan · Slack thread

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Before: any PR touching dependencies fails the Dependency Review preflight check on GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9, even though the advisory's affected-version range is wrong — the @hono/node-server fix was backported to the version in use (the repo-local advisory shows this), and a correction to the advisory database is open but unmerged (github/advisory-database#8824).

After: that one GHSA ID is explicitly allowlisted, so the check passes for it while every other advisory still blocks.

This is framed as a supply-chain exception, not a way to get CI green: the exception is a narrow, explicit, auditable single-GHSA allowlist living in a reviewed workflow file. The Dependency Review check remains enabled and blocking for everything else, and the entry is temporary — it should be removed once github/advisory-database#8824 merges (the in-file comment says so).

🔗 Related links

• Linear issue: SRE-898 (internal)
• Shared-workflow change that added the allow-ghsas pass-through input: hashintel/.github#91
• Advisory-database correction (unmerged): github/advisory-database#8824

🔍 What does this change?

• Bumps the hashintel/.github preflight-dependencies.yml reusable-workflow pin to 7968be8f8ddb5c20de24f53a3195ddb24cd7f943 (SRE-898: Support allow-ghsas pass-through in Dependency Review .github#91), which added an optional, default-empty allow-ghsas pass-through input — leaving all other callers of the shared workflow unchanged.
• Sets allow-ghsas: GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 on the dependencies job in .github/workflows/preflight.yml, with a comment explaining why and when to remove it.

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• do not affect the execution graph

🐾 Next steps

• Remove the allow-ghsas entry once GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9: 1.x line was patched in 1.19.15, not only 2.0.5 github/advisory-database#8824 merges and the advisory's affected-version range is corrected.

❓ How to test this?

1. The Dependencies / Review check on this PR (and on any PR touching dependency manifests while the allowlist is in place) should pass without flagging GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9.
2. Any other advisory should still fail the check — the input only ignores the single listed GHSA ID.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 3, 2026 1:15pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Aug 3, 2026 1:15pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 3, 2026 1:15pm

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.57%. Comparing base (c0f0068) to head (aac2dcd).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9149   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.57%   59.57%           
=======================================
  Files        1412     1412           
  Lines      138043   138043           
  Branches     6509     6509           
=======================================
  Hits        82241    82241           
  Misses      54760    54760           
  Partials     1042     1042           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	12.56% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	3.23% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	12.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	2.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.81% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-tower	67.03% <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	7.37% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	29.66% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	42.16% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	78.98% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.51% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	79.82% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.09% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	87.92% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.04% <ø> (ø)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing claude/sre-898-preflight-allow-ghsas (aac2dcd) with main (c0f0068)}

[cursor]

PR Summary

Low Risk
CI-only, narrowly scoped supply-chain exception for one GHSA; dependency review remains enforced for all other advisories.

Overview
Dependency Review preflight stops failing on a single false-positive advisory while other GHSAs stay blocking.

The dependencies job pins hashintel/.github’s preflight-dependencies.yml to a newer commit that supports an allow-ghsas input, and passes GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 with an in-file note that the advisory’s version range is wrong (fix backported in @hono/node-server) and the allowlist should be removed after github/advisory-database#8824 lands.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit aac2dcd. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates dependency preflight configuration to temporarily allowlist a single inaccurate advisory.

Changes:

• Updates the shared dependency-review workflow revision.
• Allowlists GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 with removal guidance.

[github-actions]

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	$$27.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 206 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.338 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.350 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 351 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.507 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 139 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$24.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 217 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.735 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 224 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.313 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.342 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.412 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.241 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.093 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.573 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.184 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.502 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.548 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.342 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.15 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.069 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.092 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.472 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.754 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.445 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.609 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.055 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.169 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.949 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$42.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 212 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.279 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$33.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 226 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.433 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$36.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.970 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$37.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.23 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}15.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$42.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.116 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$50.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 300 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.855 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$40.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 247 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.129 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$94.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 712 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 240 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.271 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$283 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.32 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.851 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.044 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.205 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.823 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.600 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.305 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.227 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.278 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.845 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.063 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.137 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.115 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 89.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.475 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.263 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.747 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.204 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$57.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 494 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.498 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 656 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.832 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$65.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 528 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.525 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$74.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 529 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.139 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$83.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 544 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.294 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$90.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 557 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.005 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$44.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.164 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$73.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 467 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.017 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$49.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 240 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$61.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 495 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.537 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 374 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 365 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 763 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.691 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 731 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.407 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 132 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.966 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$551 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.26 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}5.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph