Skip to content

SRE-945: Remove the GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 allowlist from the Dependencies preflight - #9210

Merged
TimDiekmann merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/sre-945-revert-ghsa-allowlist
Aug 12, 2026
Merged

TimDiekmann merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/sre-945-revert-ghsa-allowlist

Conversation

@claude

@claude claude Bot commented Aug 12, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Requested by Tim Diekmann · Slack thread

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Before: the Dependencies preflight job is told to ignore one specific advisory, GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9. Anyone reading the workflow sees a supply-chain exception with no expiry, and if that advisory ever became genuinely relevant to this repo the gate would stay silent about it.

After: the exception is gone. Dependencies / Review is blocking on every advisory again, with nothing carved out, and the workflow file no longer carries a stale "remove this later" comment.

How: the allowlist was added in #9149 purely to work around a wrong affected-version range on that advisory — it used to claim a blanket < 2.0.5, which flagged every 1.19.x even though the fix had been backported to 1.19.15. GitHub corrected the range on 2026-08-12, splitting it into two disjoint ranges: >= 2.0.0, < 2.0.5 (patched in 2.0.5) and < 1.19.15 (patched in 1.19.15). >= 1.19.15 < 2.0.0 is therefore no longer flagged, the reason for the exception is gone, and the with: block is simply removed.

This repo resolves @hono/node-server to 1.19.17 — transitively, via @modelcontextprotocol/sdk's ^1.19.9 range, and already the newest release on the 1.19 line (latest-1). npm's bulk audit endpoint returns {} for 1.19.17, so the check has nothing left to flag and no dependency change is needed alongside this revert.

🔗 Related links

🔍 What does this change?

  • Removes the with: allow-ghsas: GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 block (and its explanatory comment) from the dependencies job in .github/workflows/preflight-target.yml. allow-ghsas is the reusable workflow's only input and it is optional with a default of "", so the job call needs no with: at all — this restores the pre-SRE-898: Allowlist GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 in the Dependency Review preflight #9149 shape.
  • Leaves the hashintel/.github reusable-workflow pin at 69449a7 untouched.

Note: this is a hand-revert, not a git revert of #9149. That commit no longer applies — the dependencies job has since moved from preflight.yml to preflight-target.yml (#9197, #9172), and the reusable-workflow pin has been bumped twice (#9185, #9172). A mechanical revert conflicts and would also drag the pin backwards to d76c839, so only the allowlist itself is removed.

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

⚠️ Known issues

None. The second @hono/node-server advisory, GHSA-9mqv-5hh9-4cgg, covers >= 2.0.0, <= 2.0.9 only and has never applied to the 1.19 line this repo is on.

🛡 What tests cover this?

The Dependencies / Review check on this PR is itself the test: it now runs with no allowlist, against a lockfile that resolves @hono/node-server to 1.19.17.

❓ How to test this?

  1. Confirm the Dependencies / Review check passes on this PR with no allow-ghsas input in place.
  2. Confirm @hono/node-server audits clean at the version the lockfile resolves:
    curl -s -X POST https://registry.npmjs.org/-/npm/v1/security/advisories/bulk \
      -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
      -d '{"@hono/node-server":["1.19.17"]}'
    
    An empty {} means no advisory applies. For contrast, 1.19.14 still returns GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 with range <1.19.15, which is what the corrected advisory now says.

…es preflight

Reverts the supply-chain exception added in #9149. GitHub narrowed
GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 on 2026-08-12 to two disjoint ranges — `>= 2.0.0,
< 2.0.5` and `< 1.19.15` — so the `1.19.x` line the repo resolves is no
longer flagged and the allowlist is obsolete.

Hand-reverted rather than `git revert`-ed: the `dependencies` job has
since moved from `preflight.yml` to `preflight-target.yml` and the
reusable-workflow pin has been bumped twice, so only the `with:` block
is removed and the current pin is preserved.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MjvYwHkmR1zabWsaZmPL42
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Aug 12, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
hash Ready Ready Preview Aug 12, 2026 8:58pm
hashdotdesign-tokens Ready Ready Preview Aug 12, 2026 8:58pm
petrinaut Ready Ready Preview Aug 12, 2026 8:58pm

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 12, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.63%. Comparing base (38ab9fd) to head (414ce82).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9210   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.63%   59.63%           
=======================================
  Files        1420     1421    +1     
  Lines      138767   138770    +3     
  Branches     6555     6555           
=======================================
+ Hits        82753    82758    +5     
+ Misses      54950    54948    -2     
  Partials     1064     1064           
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api 14.00% <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 3.27% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk 10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils 12.22% <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 96.24% <ø> (+0.03%) ⬆️
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 7.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authentication 100.00% <ø> (?)
rust.hash-graph-authorization 62.59% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings 91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store 29.33% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store 46.78% <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

codspeed Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks


Comparing claude/sre-945-revert-ghsa-allowlist (414ce82) with main (648e991)

Open in CodSpeed

@TimDiekmann
TimDiekmann marked this pull request as ready for review August 12, 2026 20:55
Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings August 12, 2026 20:55
@TimDiekmann
TimDiekmann enabled auto-merge August 12, 2026 20:55
@cursor

cursor Bot commented Aug 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PR Summary

Cursor Bugbot is generating a summary for commit 414ce82. Configure here.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

Removes the obsolete dependency-review advisory exception, restoring checks for all advisories.

Changes:

  • Removes the GHSA-frvp-7c67-39w9 allowlist and stale explanatory comment.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

@TimDiekmann
TimDiekmann added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 12, 2026
Merged via the queue into main with commit 7409d46 Aug 12, 2026
203 checks passed
@TimDiekmann
TimDiekmann deleted the claude/sre-945-revert-ghsa-allowlist branch August 12, 2026 21:27
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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 $$27.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 153 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.962 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002 $$12.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 105 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.651 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$44.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 352 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 128 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527 $$23.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 176 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.734 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$29.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.412 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$14.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$3.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.698 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.397 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52 $$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.591 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$5.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.988 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108 $$4.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.290 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$4.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.363 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$4.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.051 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.059 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.041 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2 $$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.852 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.064 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.374 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.541 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.182 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.649 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.430 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27 $$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.381 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.835 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.199 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.374 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$42.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.046 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$33.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 226 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.847 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$36.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.725 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$32.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$43.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 239 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.002 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$51.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 350 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$41.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.180 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$94.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 574 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$34.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.967 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$282 \mathrm{ms} \pm 914 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.759 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$11.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.934 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$11.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.266 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 89.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.450 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$12.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 93.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.904 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$13.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$12.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.402 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$12.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$8.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$61.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 416 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 567 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$70.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 514 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$76.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 521 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$86.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 484 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$91.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 687 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$45.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 252 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$74.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 380 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$53.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 399 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$62.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 367 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$65.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 483 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$63.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 465 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$119 \mathrm{ms} \pm 621 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.625 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 661 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 116 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.826 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$527 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.34 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.426 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

This branch was successfully deployed

3 active and 1 inactive deployments
Preview – hash — 414ce82d Deployed Aug 12, 2026 by vercel[bot]
Preview – petrinaut — 414ce82d Deployed Aug 12, 2026 by vercel[bot]
pull-request — 414ce82d Deployed Aug 12, 2026 by claude[bot] via Sourcemaps (@apps/hash-integration-worker) #29436
Preview – hashdotdesign-tokens — 414ce82d Deployed Aug 12, 2026 by vercel[bot]
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area/infra Relates to version control, CI, CD or IaC (area)

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants