SRE-805: Validate mise lockfile in CI by claude[bot] · Pull Request #9018 · hashintel/hash

claude · 2026-07-13T13:21:28Z

Requested by Tim Diekmann · Slack thread

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Before: a bad .config/mise/mise.lock — stale versions after a config.toml pin bump, missing platform entries, or a corrupt/tampered locked artifact — is only caught by a human reading the diff, or at install time on the affected platform. CI never exercises the lockfile directly; the Docker builds only hit it implicitly and late.

After: the Lint workflow fails fast (well under 2 minutes) with mise's own error messages when the lockfile is stale, incomplete for the platform, or fails checksum verification — on both linux-x64 and linux-arm64 runners.

How — mise-native validation only, no custom scripting:

Locked resolution: mise install --locked --dry-run — mise fails if any configured tool (including ones not pinned in config.toml, e.g. rust from rust-toolchain.toml) is missing from the lockfile, or lacks a pre-resolved URL for the current platform. No downloads.
Integrity: mise install --locked cargo-binstall java just node protoc sentry-cli taplo uv yq — actually downloads the locked URLs and mise verifies the sha256 checksums and sizes. These are the tools carrying platforms.* entries in the lockfile; cargo/npm/pipx tools install through their own package managers and have no locked URLs to verify.

Skip behavior: mise.lock does not exist on main until #9000 merges, so every validation step is gated on the file existing and the job passes as a no-op until then. This PR is green both before and after #9000 lands.

Deliberately out of scope: the wrong-arch asset class (e.g. mise lock emitting the yq_darwin_amd64 asset under the macos-arm64 key, as reproduced in #9000) is not checked — it is an upstream mise lock bug (draft issue text is on this PR), the lockfile it produces is internally consistent, and catching it cross-platform would require exactly the kind of custom lockfile parsing we decided against. macOS entries are validated for presence (layer 1) but not downloaded.

🔗 Related links

Linear: SRE-805 (internal)
SRE-805: Harden Docker mise tool installation against transient upstream failures #9000 (introduces mise.lock)

🚫 Blocked by

Nothing — safe to merge before or after SRE-805: Harden Docker mise tool installation against transient upstream failures #9000.

🔍 What does this change?

Adds a mise-lock job to .github/workflows/lint.yml, matrixed over ubuntu-24.04 and ubuntu-24.04-arm (same runners as deploy.yml), using the repo-pinned jdx/mise-action.
Wires the new job into the passed gate job (accepting success|skipped).

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

The tool list in the "Install URL-locked tools" step is maintained by hand (a comment in the workflow says to keep it in sync with mise.lock); a tool missing from the list is still validated by the dry-run step, just not downloaded.
config.ci.toml/config.dev.toml tools are not validated: mise keeps per-environment lockfiles (mise.ci.lock etc.), which don't exist yet.

🐾 Next steps

Regenerate the lockfile once the upstream mise lock wrong-arch bug (yq macos-arm64) is fixed.
Consider locking the CI environment (mise.ci.lock) and extending validation to it.

🛡 What tests cover this?

Behavior relies on mise's own locked-mode semantics (verified against mise 2026.7.0 source: locked resolution failure, locked URL-presence check running under --dry-run, and install-time sha256/size verification).

❓ How to test this?

Check out this branch and observe the Mise lockfile jobs skip (no lockfile on main yet).
Cherry-pick the lockfile commit from SRE-805: Harden Docker mise tool installation against transient upstream failures #9000 onto this branch: the jobs run, resolve every tool from the lockfile, and download + checksum-verify the URL-locked tools.
Corrupt any checksum or URL in mise.lock, or bump a config.toml pin without re-locking: the job fails with mise's own error message.

Add a 'Mise lockfile' job to the Lint workflow that catches broken, stale, or wrong-architecture .config/mise/mise.lock entries: - .github/scripts/validate-mise-lock.py runs offline checks: config.toml pins match locked versions, required platforms are covered, no platform entry points at an asset for a different OS/arch, and no two platforms share a non-universal asset. - 'mise install --locked --dry-run' natively fails on tools missing from the lockfile or lacking pre-resolved URLs for the platform. - A real 'mise install --locked' of URL-locked tools downloads and sha256-verifies the locked artifacts on linux-x64 and linux-arm64. The job skips gracefully while mise.lock is absent on main, and the known wrong-arch yq macos-arm64 entry produced by 'mise lock' upstream is allowlisted as a warning with a tracking comment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EcBiQCfeizMQJubtqXkiMs

vercel · 2026-07-13T13:21:35Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 13, 2026 1:44pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 13, 2026 1:44pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jul 13, 2026 1:44pm

claude · 2026-07-13T13:24:21Z

Upstream issue draft for jdx/mise — this session can only write to hashintel repos, so filing it needs someone with access. Ready to copy-paste at https://github.com/jdx/mise/issues/new:

Title: mise lock resolves the darwin_amd64 asset for platforms.macos-arm64 for aqua:mikefarah/yq

mise version: 2026.7.0

Repro: In a project with yq = "4.53.2" in mise.toml (aqua backend, aqua:mikefarah/yq), run:

mise lock -p linux-x64,linux-arm64,macos-x64,macos-arm64

Observed: the macos-arm64 entry is byte-identical to the macos-x64 entry — both point at the yq_darwin_amd64 asset (release asset id 398368453):

[tools.yq."platforms.macos-arm64"]
checksum = "sha256:616b0a0f6a5b79d746f05a169c2b9bb40dee00c605ef165b9a1c1681bba738ac"
url = "https://github.com/mikefarah/yq/releases/download/v4.53.2/yq_darwin_amd64"
url_api = "https://api.github.com/repos/mikefarah/yq/releases/assets/398368453"
provenance = "cosign"

[tools.yq."platforms.macos-x64"]
checksum = "sha256:616b0a0f6a5b79d746f05a169c2b9bb40dee00c605ef165b9a1c1681bba738ac"
url = "https://github.com/mikefarah/yq/releases/download/v4.53.2/yq_darwin_amd64"
url_api = "https://api.github.com/repos/mikefarah/yq/releases/assets/398368453"
provenance = "cosign"

Expected: macos-arm64 should resolve the native yq_darwin_arm64 asset, which exists in the v4.53.2 release.

All other tools in the same config (aqua and core backends: cargo-binstall, just, protoc, sentry-cli, taplo, uv, node, java) resolve per-platform correctly in the same run — only yq is affected. Reproduced twice by independent mise lock runs. Since the checksum is computed from the wrong asset, the lockfile is internally consistent and installs verify "successfully" on Apple silicon (running under Rosetta 2), so nothing catches it at install time.

Found while locking tools in hashintel/hash PR #9000.

codspeed-hq · 2026-07-13T13:28:41Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

_{Comparing claude/sre-805-validate-mise-lock (057b501) with main (b6fb59e)}

Per review: no Python validator for the lockfile. The mise-lock job now relies solely on mise itself: - 'mise install --locked --dry-run' fails on tools missing from the lockfile or lacking pre-resolved URLs for the current platform. - 'mise install --locked <url-locked tools>' downloads the locked URLs and verifies sha256 checksums and sizes natively. The wrong-arch asset class (e.g. the upstream yq macos-arm64 bug) is intentionally no longer checked in CI. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EcBiQCfeizMQJubtqXkiMs

codecov · 2026-07-13T13:34:21Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.73%. Comparing base (6736174) to head (057b501).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9018   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.73%   59.73%           
=======================================
  Files        1371     1371           
  Lines      135461   135461           
  Branches     6066     6066           
=======================================
+ Hits        80911    80912    +1     
+ Misses      53618    53617    -1     
  Partials      932      932

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`1.39% <ø> (ø)`
apps.hash-api	`6.39% <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	`1.90% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-graph-sdk	`10.02% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	`0.18% <ø> (ø)`
rust.antsi	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.error-stack	`90.89% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-codec	`84.70% <ø> (ø)`
rust.harpc-net	`96.21% <ø> (+0.01%)`	⬆️
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	`7.41% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-authorization	`62.59% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	`91.88% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	`29.13% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-store	`38.47% <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	`80.04% <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.

claude · 2026-07-13T13:35:27Z

Folded into #9000 per review feedback (mise-native validation only, commit 373ac55); the upstream jdx/mise issue draft in the comment above remains valid.

github-actions · 2026-07-13T14:52:17Z

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	$$26.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.339 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.031 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 98.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.503 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 324 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.092 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 142 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$24.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 219 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.228 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$26.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 187 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.238 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.739 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 132 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.311 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.229 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.896 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.542 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.180 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.203 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.886 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.403 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.048 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.051 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.718 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.239 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.365 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.137 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.522 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.883 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.451 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.935 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$41.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.912 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$32.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 173 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.557 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 226 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.363 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$51.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.15 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}3.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$42.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 233 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.743 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$48.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 210 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.565 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$40.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 205 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.042 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$90.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 478 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.197 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$33.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 143 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.768 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$305 \mathrm{ms} \pm 975 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.037 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.193 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.847 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.159 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.100 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.213 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.176 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.146 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.261 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.309 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.935 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.127 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.368 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.017 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.090 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.121 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.734 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.407 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.545 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 47.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.832 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$59.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 510 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.244 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 741 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.494 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$64.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 373 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.719 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$76.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 584 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.038 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$86.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 629 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.043 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$91.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 593 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.195 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$44.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 214 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.571 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$75.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 479 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.940 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$51.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 349 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.658 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$61.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 395 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.492 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 315 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.263 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 527 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.487 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 509 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.175 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 436 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.888 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$18.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.860 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$575 \mathrm{ms} \pm 938 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

github-actions Bot added the area/infra Relates to version control, CI, CD or IaC (area) label Jul 13, 2026

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hashdotdesign-tokens July 13, 2026 13:23 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut July 13, 2026 13:26 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hashdotdesign-tokens July 13, 2026 13:31 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut July 13, 2026 13:34 View deployment

claude Bot closed this Jul 13, 2026

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash July 13, 2026 13:44 View deployment

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

SRE-805: Validate mise lockfile in CI#9018

SRE-805: Validate mise lockfile in CI#9018
claude[bot] wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
claude/sre-805-validate-mise-lock

claude Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Jul 13, 2026

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Jul 13, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 13, 2026

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Uh oh!

Conversation

claude Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔗 Related links

🚫 Blocked by

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

⚠️ Known issues

🐾 Next steps

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Jul 13, 2026

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

claude Bot commented Jul 13, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jul 13, 2026

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

claude Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

vercel Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jul 13, 2026 •

edited

Loading