Skip to content

Update vitest npm packages to v4 (major) #8129

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
hash-worker wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update vitest npm packages to v4 (major) #8129

hash-worker wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@hash-worker
Copy link
Contributor

@hash-worker hash-worker bot commented Nov 30, 2025 •
edited
Loading

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 -> 4.0.15 age confidence
vitest (source) 3.2.4 -> 4.0.15 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)

v4.0.15

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
   🐞 Bug Fixes

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 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 57.69%. Comparing base (f379581) to head (4a817a8).
⚠️ Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8129      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   57.84%   57.69%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files        1167     1167              
  Lines      109264   109445     +181     
  Branches     4976     4882      -94     
==========================================
- Hits        63208    63148      -60     
- Misses      45310    45551     +241     
  Partials      746      746
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.36% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️
apps.hash-api 0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks 0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack 90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net 96.18% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
rust.harpc-tower 66.80% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-codec 72.76% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization 62.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning 47.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast 87.24% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core 82.46% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics 72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval 68.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir 83.78% <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.

@hash-worker hash-worker bot force-pushed the deps/js/major-vitest-npm-packages branch from a0e15af to 2528606 Compare December 5, 2025 16:16
@hash-worker hash-worker bot force-pushed the deps/js/major-vitest-npm-packages branch from 2528606 to 4a817a8 Compare December 6, 2025 11:13
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Dec 6, 2025

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 $$28.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 188 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001 $$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$41.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 279 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.479 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$14.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526 $$23.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 199 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.418 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$27.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 174 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-37.066 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-79.289 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$11.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-60.132 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$3.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.085 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51 $$3.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.589 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$5.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.479 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.657 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107 $$4.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$4.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.451 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$3.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.84 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1 $$2.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25 $$2.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.95 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$38.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 149 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$84.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 388 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.317 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$42.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$44.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 174 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$53.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.262 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$40.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.788 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$494 \mathrm{ms} \pm 793 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.481 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$98.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 458 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.528 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$82.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 371 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.653 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$289 \mathrm{ms} \pm 627 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.331 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.476 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.225 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$18.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$14.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.016 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$15.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$22.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 358 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.486 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 290 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.386 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 323 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.812 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 299 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.524 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 336 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.680 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$29.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 323 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.236 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.727 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$28.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 309 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.542 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$8.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.580 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$57.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.339 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 351 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.803 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$62.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 300 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.031 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$71.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 341 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.557 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$78.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 271 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.422 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$86.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 383 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.460 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$50.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 281 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.263 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$79.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 304 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.917 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$59.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 331 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$65.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 335 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.393 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$67.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.894 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$67.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.650 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$148 \mathrm{ms} \pm 716 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$142 \mathrm{ms} \pm 532 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.29 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$41.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 185 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-33.842 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$572 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.18 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.206 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

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

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@indietyp indietyp

@TimDiekmann TimDiekmann

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

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@indietyp @TimDiekmann