Skip to content

Update npm package lodash-es to v4.17.23 [SECURITY] #8280

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 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update npm package lodash-es to v4.17.23 [SECURITY] #8280

hash-worker wants to merge 2 commits into from
+8 −15

Conversation

@hash-worker
Copy link
Contributor

@hash-worker hash-worker bot commented Jan 21, 2026

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Confidence
lodash-es (source) 4.17.21 -> 4.17.23 age confidence

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2025-13465

Impact

Lodash versions 4.0.0 through 4.17.22 are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. An attacker can pass crafted paths which cause Lodash to delete methods from global prototypes.

The issue permits deletion of properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior.

Patches

This issue is patched on 4.17.23.

Release Notes

lodash/lodash (lodash-es)

v4.17.23

Compare Source

v4.17.22

Compare Source

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (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 this update 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 January 21, 2026 23:16
@vercel
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •
edited
Loading

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

Project Deployment Review Updated (UTC)
ds-theme Ready Ready Preview, Comment Jan 25, 2026 2:59pm
hashdotdesign Ready Ready Preview, Comment Jan 25, 2026 2:59pm
hashdotdesign-tokens Ready Ready Preview, Comment Jan 25, 2026 2:59pm

@cursor
Copy link

cursor bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •
edited
Loading

PR Summary

Dependency upgrade (security patch)

  • Update lodash-es to 4.17.23 in hash-isomorphic-utils and status/typescript, and refresh yarn.lock
  • Pulls in fix for prototype pollution (CVE-2025-13465) in _.unset/_.omit

No application code changes.

Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 59d41ed. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.

@github-actions github-actions bot added area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/apps > hash* Affects HASH (a `hash-*` app) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team labels Jan 21, 2026
@augmentcode
Copy link

augmentcode bot commented Jan 21, 2026

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the pinned lodash-es dependency to 4.17.23 across affected workspace packages to address a security advisory.
Changes: Bumps lodash-es from 4.17.21 to 4.17.23 in libs/@local/hash-isomorphic-utils and libs/@local/status/typescript (lockfile updated accordingly).

🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎

augmentcode[bot]
augmentcode bot reviewed Jan 21, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@augmentcode augmentcode bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •
edited
Loading

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Comparing deps/js/npm-lodash-es-vulnerability (59d41ed) with main (9125fd4)

Summary

✅ 18 untouched benchmarks
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run1

Footnotes

  1. 12 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 21, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.19%. Comparing base (9125fd4) to head (59d41ed).

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8280   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.19%   60.19%           
=======================================
  Files        1232     1232           
  Lines      118007   118007           
  Branches     5135     5135           
=======================================
+ Hits        71030    71032    +2     
+ Misses      46151    46149    -2     
  Partials      826      826
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.41% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api 0.00% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system 40.84% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks 0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client 51.24% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk 10.88% <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 96.19% <ø> (+0.03%) ⬆️
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 2.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization 62.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store 25.61% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store 30.54% <ø> (ø)
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 87.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest 46.65% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core 81.77% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics 72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval 68.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir 89.10% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir 88.00% <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.

@hash-worker
Copy link
Contributor Author

hash-worker bot commented Jan 25, 2026

Edited/Blocked Notification

Renovate will not automatically rebase this PR, because it does not recognize the last commit author and assumes somebody else may have edited the PR.

You can manually request rebase by checking the rebase/retry box above.

⚠️ Warning: custom changes will be lost.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Jan 25, 2026

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 $$26.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 186 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.266 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.927 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001 $$12.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 100 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$42.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 404 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$14.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 142 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526 $$23.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 168 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$26.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 144 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-39.296 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-82.087 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-52.264 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$3.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51 $$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$5.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107 $$4.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$4.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$3.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.576 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1 $$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25 $$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$3.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$3.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$39.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 184 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$76.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 434 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.003 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$45.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 239 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$46.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 192 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.908 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$55.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 373 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$41.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 222 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$413 \mathrm{ms} \pm 887 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.038 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$96.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 527 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$85.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 476 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.037 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$287 \mathrm{ms} \pm 923 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.103 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 77.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$15.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$15.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 88.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$18.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.404 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$15.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$15.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$22.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 156 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.381 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$29.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 251 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.363 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 316 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.315 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$30.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 252 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$30.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.316 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$30.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$28.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 294 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.581 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$30.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 287 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.592 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$30.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 264 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.613 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$8.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.926 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$47.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 222 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.730 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$97.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 469 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.470 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$53.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 261 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.281 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$62.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.082 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$70.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 454 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.589 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$76.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 365 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.686 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$51.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 395 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.245 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$80.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 461 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.045 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$58.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 347 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.160 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$65.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 404 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.628 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$67.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 324 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.133 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$67.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 398 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.584 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 536 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.811 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 504 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.723 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$40.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 212 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-61.387 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$571 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.22 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.521 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

@graphite-app graphite-app bot requested review from a team January 25, 2026 16:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

1 more reviewer

@augmentcode augmentcode[bot] augmentcode[bot] left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@CiaranMn CiaranMn

Labels

area/apps > hash* Affects HASH (a `hash-*` app) area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@CiaranMn @vilkinsons