Skip to content

Update vitest npm packages to v4 (major)#8129

Open
hash-worker[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
deps/js/major-vitest-npm-packages
Open

Update vitest npm packages to v4 (major)#8129
hash-worker[bot] wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
deps/js/major-vitest-npm-packages

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 -> 4.1.0 age confidence
vitest (source) 3.2.4 -> 4.1.0 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)

v4.1.0

Compare Source

Vitest 4.1 is out!

This release page lists all changes made to the project during the 4.1 beta. To get a review of all the new features, read our blog post.

   🚀 Features
   🐞 Bug Fixes
   🏎 Performance
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.18

Compare Source

   🚀 Experimental Features
   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.17

Compare Source

   🚀 Experimental Features
   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.16

Compare Source

   🐞 Bug Fixes
    View changes on GitHub

v4.0.15

Compare Source

   🚀 Experimental Features
   🐞 Bug Fixes

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "before 4am every weekday,every weekend" (UTC), Automerge - "before 4am every weekday,every weekend" (UTC).

🚦 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 62.49%. Comparing base (e0e4091) to head (aa3d7b5).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8129      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.60%   62.49%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files        1317     1320       +3     
  Lines      133977   134252     +275     
  Branches     5517     5507      -10     
==========================================
+ Hits        83877    83905      +28     
- Misses      49185    49432     +247     
  Partials      915      915              
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.40% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
apps.hash-api 0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system 40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks 0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client 51.49% <ø> (+0.25%) ⬆️
local.hash-graph-sdk 9.63% <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 96.18% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
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 2.52% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization 62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store 26.39% <ø> (-0.34%) ⬇️
rust.hash-graph-store 37.76% <ø> (-0.13%) ⬇️
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 87.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest 29.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core 82.29% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics 72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval 69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir 89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir 92.64% <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

Medium Risk
Major-version upgrade of the test runner and coverage provider may change test/coverage behavior and cause CI failures, but it does not affect production runtime code paths.

Overview
Upgrades the monorepo’s test tooling by bumping vitest and @vitest/coverage-istanbul from 3.2.4 to 4.1.0 across multiple packages.

Updates yarn.lock accordingly, pulling in the new Vitest 4 dependency tree (notably updated coverage-related transitive deps such as @babel/core, magicast, and istanbul-reports).

Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit aa3d7b5. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 15, 2026

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

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
ds-theme Ready Ready Preview, Comment Mar 18, 2026 2:59pm
hash Ready Ready Preview, Comment Mar 18, 2026 2:59pm
hashdotdesign Ready Ready Preview, Comment Mar 18, 2026 2:59pm
hashdotdesign-tokens Ready Ready Preview, Comment Mar 18, 2026 2:59pm
petrinaut Ready Ready Preview Mar 18, 2026 2:59pm

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 15, 2026

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks


Comparing deps/js/major-vitest-npm-packages (aa3d7b5) with main (ee670b9)

Open in CodSpeed

@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Feb 17, 2026

Deployment failed with the following error:

Creating the Deployment Timed Out.

"rimraf": "6.1.2",
"typescript": "5.9.3",
"vitest": "3.2.4"
"vitest": "4.0.18"
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Deprecated poolOptions config not updated for vitest v4

Medium Severity

Upgrading vitest to v4 in tests/hash-backend-integration/package.json without updating the corresponding vitest.config.ts, which uses poolOptions with singleThread and singleFork. These options are deprecated in vitest v4 (confirmed by v4.0.16 release note: "Log deprecated test.poolOptions if it's set"). This will emit deprecation warnings on every test run and the behavior may differ from v3, since vitest v4 replaced the underlying runtime from vite-node to module-runner. The v4 migration path is to use maxWorkers: 1 instead, though additional config may be needed to fully replicate v3's singleThread/singleFork semantics.

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

Copy link

@cursor cursor bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

@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 $$27.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 224 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.470 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.553 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001 $$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.325 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$43.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 369 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.970 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.348 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526 $$24.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 167 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.216 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.932 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$13.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.502 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$3.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.426 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51 $$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.866 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$5.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.268 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.134 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107 $$4.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$4.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.573 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.378 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$4.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.280 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.709 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.192 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1 $$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.026 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.338 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.148 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.270 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.747 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25 $$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.004 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$3.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.047 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.411 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.370 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.063 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.883 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.008 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$45.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 167 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.663 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$82.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 403 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.195 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$51.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 265 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.627 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$53.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 395 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$61.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 423 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.111 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$47.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 184 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.177 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$426 \mathrm{ms} \pm 881 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.783 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$100 \mathrm{ms} \pm 514 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.742 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$91.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 376 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.680 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$290 \mathrm{ms} \pm 746 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.744 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.380 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.664 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$20.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$25.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 124 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.018 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.252 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.785 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.031 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 92.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.105 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$26.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.432 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$33.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 289 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$33.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 258 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.998 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 255 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$36.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 279 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.982 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$35.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 333 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 274 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 316 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.555 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$35.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 314 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.177 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$33.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 276 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.784 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$8.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.942 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$95.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 598 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$147 \mathrm{ms} \pm 539 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.153 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 498 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$111 \mathrm{ms} \pm 533 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 666 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$127 \mathrm{ms} \pm 578 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 365 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.691 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$131 \mathrm{ms} \pm 537 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.587 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 459 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 511 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.603 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 525 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.604 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 472 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.866 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$133 \mathrm{ms} \pm 449 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.264 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$143 \mathrm{ms} \pm 469 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.658 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 550 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}159 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$556 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.98 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}2.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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.

2 participants