SRE-985: Remove the vestigial head-SHA checkout pin from the unit-tests job by claude[bot] · Pull Request #9439 · hashintel/hash

claude · 2026-08-29T16:06:09Z

Requested by Tim Diekmann · Slack thread

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Before: the setup job in test.yml works out which packages a pull request affects by looking at the merge ref — the PR's changes as they would land on main. The unit-tests job then pinned its own checkout to the PR head instead. So the two jobs disagreed about which tree they were talking about. If a PR's head is older than a package that has since landed on main, setup hands unit-tests a matrix entry for a package that does not exist in the head tree, and the job dies at its "Prune repository" step. The change under test is fine; the workflow put it in an impossible position.

After: unit-tests checks out the same merge ref that produced its matrix, so the matrix always names packages that are actually present. This is what every other job already does — setup, integration-tests and publish-rust in this file, and the whole of lint.yml, codspeed.yml and deploy.yml. The pin was the only one of its kind in test.yml.

How: the fix is to delete the two-line with: ref: block from the unit-tests checkout. The pin was added by #8034 (SRE-133) because DeepSource's coverage action wanted the head SHA. #8041 removed DeepSource five days later and left the pin behind. Nothing depends on it today: DeepSource is gone from the repository entirely, and the Codecov upload steps take no SHA input — the identical steps already run unpinned in integration-tests, which is the direct evidence that Codecov does not need it.

🔗 Related links

SRE-985
SRE-736 — also about which ref CI reasons about, but a separate change: it moves affected-package detection off HEAD^. Not touched here.
SRE-133: Bootstrap DeepSource in HASH repo #8034 added the pin, SRE-142: Remove DeepSource #8041 removed the reason for it.

🔍 What does this change?

.github/workflows/test.yml: drop ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} from the unit-tests checkout. This is the change the ticket asks for.
.github/workflows/bench.yml: a separable tidy-up, in its own second commit so it can be dropped without touching the first. A sweep of everything under .github/ for head-ref checkout pins turned up four more in bench.yml. Two pairs (base.sha then head.sha, both gated if: github.event_name == 'pull_request') are the deliberate A/B benchmarking checkouts and are left exactly as they are. The other two are dead: they sit on Checkout steps gated if: github.event_name != 'pull_request', and bench.yml triggers only on pull_request and push, so whenever those steps run there is no pull request in the payload and the expression evaluates to the empty string. actions/checkout treats an empty ref as unset and checks out the triggering ref anyway, so the inputs have never done anything. Removing them changes no behaviour.

Validation: actionlint v1.7.12 (the version housekeeping.yml pins) reports exactly the same findings on this branch as on main — 29, all of them the $/ self-repository syntax that this actionlint version predates. Both files still parse as YAML and the job and step structure is unchanged apart from the deletions above.

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. Both changes are deletions of inputs that nothing reads.

🛡 What tests cover this?

CI on this PR is the test. unit-tests running green proves the job still checks out a usable tree without the pin.

❓ How to test this?

Watch the Test / Unit jobs on this PR — they now run on the merge ref.
To see the original failure, open a PR from a branch whose head predates a package added to main, and confirm on main that unit-tests fails at "Prune repository" while setup lists the new package.

The `setup` job computes the affected-package matrix on a pull request's merge ref, while `unit-tests` pinned its own checkout to the head SHA. When a PR's head predates a package that has since landed on `main`, the matrix names a package that is absent from the head tree and the job fails at its "Prune repository" step. The pin arrived with #8034 for DeepSource's coverage action; #8041 removed DeepSource and left the pin behind. Nothing reads it now, so the job joins the rest of the file on the merge ref.

Both `Checkout` steps guarded by `github.event_name != 'pull_request'` set `ref` to `github.event.pull_request.head.sha`. bench.yml runs only on `pull_request` and `push`, so on the events that reach these steps the payload carries no pull request and the expression is empty; actions/checkout treats an empty `ref` as unset and checks out the triggering ref regardless. The deliberate base/head checkout pairs that drive A/B benchmarking on pull requests are untouched.

vercel · 2026-08-29T16:06:17Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview	Aug 29, 2026 4:20pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Aug 29, 2026 4:20pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Aug 29, 2026 4:20pm
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Aug 29, 2026 4:20pm

codecov · 2026-08-29T16:09:54Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 61.00%. Comparing base (59468b1) to head (0bcf754).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9439      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   60.66%   61.00%   +0.33%     
==========================================
  Files        1439     1446       +7     
  Lines      143119   144453    +1334     
  Branches     6654     6687      +33     
==========================================
+ Hits        86817    88117    +1300     
- Misses      55211    55232      +21     
- Partials     1091     1104      +13

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`1.99% <ø> (ø)`
apps.hash-api	`14.68% <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	`96.19% <ø> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
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-config	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-api	`19.76% <ø> (-1.28%)`	⬇️
rust.hash-graph-authentication	`97.00% <ø> (+0.97%)`	⬆️
rust.hash-graph-authorization	`63.14% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	`91.88% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	`32.02% <ø> (+0.30%)`	⬆️
rust.hash-graph-store	`48.41% <ø> (-0.09%)`	⬇️
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	`50.18% <ø> (+2.22%)`	⬆️
rust.hash-graph-types	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-validation	`84.71% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-middleware	`92.19% <ø> (∅)`
rust.hashql-ast	`89.63% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-compiletest	`28.39% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-core	`78.95% <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-hq · 2026-08-29T16:13:47Z

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 15.38%

⚠️

Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

❌ 2 regressed benchmarks
✅ 96 untouched benchmarks

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
❌	`bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[64]`	140.8 ns	170 ns	-17.16%
❌	`bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]`	185.8 ns	215 ns	-13.57%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

_{Comparing claude/sre-985-drop-unit-tests-head-sha-pin (0bcf754) with main (59468b1)¹}

No successful run was found on main (56c4651) during the generation of this report, so 59468b1 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

cursor · 2026-08-29T16:38:37Z

PR Summary

Low Risk
Workflow-only deletions that align checkout with existing jobs; no application or security logic changes.

Overview
Fixes a ref mismatch in the Test workflow: unit-tests no longer pins checkout to the PR head SHA, so it uses the same default ref as setup (the merge ref). That stops matrix entries for packages that exist on merged main but not on an stale PR head from breaking Prune repository.

Also removes the same vestigial ref: ${{ github.event.pull_request.head.sha }} from non–pull-request Checkout steps in bench.yml (unit and integration bench jobs), where the expression is empty on push and checkout behavior was already unchanged. Deliberate base/head bench checkouts on PRs are untouched.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 0bcf754. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

github-actions · 2026-08-29T17:28:03Z

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	$$26.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 195 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$38.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 280 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 118 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}18.0 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$22.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 188 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 197 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$4.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.93 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$3.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.943 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.566 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$37.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 206 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$30.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 192 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$33.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 234 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$29.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 160 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$39.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 212 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$43.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.528 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$35.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 195 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.87 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$82.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 555 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$29.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 152 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$245 \mathrm{ms} \pm 724 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$9.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$9.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$9.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$9.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$9.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$9.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$9.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$9.53 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$9.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$10.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$9.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$9.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$9.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 64.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$9.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$9.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$9.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$9.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$9.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$9.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$7.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 40.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$56.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 380 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 513 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$63.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 368 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 410 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$79.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 391 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$83.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 381 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$41.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 210 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$67.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 559 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$47.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 276 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$56.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 312 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$58.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 352 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$57.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 412 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 685 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$124 \mathrm{ms} \pm 735 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$19.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}22.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$484 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.25 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}3.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

claude added 2 commits August 29, 2026 16:05

github-actions Bot added the area/infra Relates to version control, CI, CD or IaC (area) label Aug 29, 2026

claude Bot assigned TimDiekmann Aug 29, 2026

claude Bot deployed to pull-request August 29, 2026 16:06 Active

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hashdotdesign-tokens August 29, 2026 16:08 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut-docs August 29, 2026 16:08 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut August 29, 2026 16:09 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash August 29, 2026 16:20 View deployment

claude Bot marked this pull request as ready for review August 29, 2026 16:38

claude Bot requested a review from TimDiekmann August 29, 2026 16:38

TimDiekmann approved these changes Aug 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

TimDiekmann added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 29, 2026

Merged via the queue into main with commit 73cbb0b Aug 29, 2026
222 checks passed

TimDiekmann deleted the claude/sre-985-drop-unit-tests-head-sha-pin branch August 29, 2026 17:12

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

SRE-985: Remove the vestigial head-SHA checkout pin from the unit-tests job - #9439

SRE-985: Remove the vestigial head-SHA checkout pin from the unit-tests job#9439
TimDiekmann merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
claude/sre-985-drop-unit-tests-head-sha-pin

claude Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Aug 29, 2026

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 29, 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!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

claude Bot commented Aug 29, 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

🔍 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

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Aug 29, 2026

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 15.38%

Performance Changes

Footnotes

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Aug 29, 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!

2 participants

claude Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

vercel Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading