Skip to content

Update Rust to nightly-2026-09-02 - #9250

Open
hash-dependencies[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
deps/rust-1.x
Open

hash-dependencies[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
deps/rust-1.x

Conversation

@hash-dependencies

@hash-dependencies hash-dependencies Bot commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Type Update Change Pending
rust (source, changelog) toolchain patch nightly-2026-08-03nightly-2026-09-02 nightly-2026-09-16 (+13)

Warning

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


Configuration

📅 Schedule: (UTC)

  • Branch creation
    • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"
  • Automerge
    • "before 4am every weekday,every weekend"

🚦 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 Mend Renovate CLI.

@hash-dependencies
hash-dependencies Bot enabled auto-merge August 19, 2026 12:53
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

Project Deployment Actions Updated
hash Ready Ready Preview Sep 16, 2026 3:36am UTC
hashdotdesign-tokens Ready Ready Preview Sep 16, 2026 3:36am UTC
petrinaut Ready Ready Preview Sep 16, 2026 3:36am UTC
petrinaut-docs Ready Ready Preview Sep 16, 2026 3:36am UTC

Request Review

@cursor

cursor Bot commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

PR Summary

Low Risk
Single-file toolchain pin update with no application or dependency logic changes.

Overview
Bumps the pinned Rust nightly toolchain in rust-toolchain.toml from nightly-2026-08-03 to nightly-2026-09-02. The component set (rustfmt, clippy, llvm-tools, miri, rust-src, rust-analyzer, rustc-codegen-cranelift) is unchanged.

This is a routine Renovate toolchain refresh so local builds and CI use a newer compiler snapshot.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 5975d0f. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 55.79%. Comparing base (fb728e4) to head (5975d0f).
⚠️ Report is 68 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9250       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   65.90%   55.79%   -10.11%     
===========================================
  Files        1887     1049      -838     
  Lines      198443    97387   -101056     
  Branches     8248     5272     -2976     
===========================================
- Hits       130774    54341    -76433     
+ Misses      66139    42332    -23807     
+ Partials     1530      714      -816     
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-py ?
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api 15.35% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-graph ?
backend-integration-tests ?
blockprotocol.type-system 38.15% <ø> (ø)
deer ?
error-stack ?
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)
local.hash-subgraph ?
rust.antsi 2.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.deer ?
rust.error-stack ?
rust.harpc-codec 84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net 96.23% <ø> (ø)
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 81.14% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api ?
rust.hash-graph-atlas ?
rust.hash-graph-authentication 96.02% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization 63.14% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings 91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store 32.15% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store 48.41% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning 50.18% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation 84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-middleware 90.92% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast ?
rust.hashql-compiletest ?
rust.hashql-core 78.92% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics 72.51% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval ?
rust.hashql-hir ?
rust.hashql-mir ?
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr 94.04% <ø> (ø)
rust.sarif ?
sarif ?
tests.hash-backend-integration ?
unit-tests ?

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

codspeed Bot commented Aug 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Merging this PR will not alter performance

⚠️ 6 benchmarks measured no execution time

Nothing ran under measurement, usually because the compiler removed the code under test. These results are not comparable, so they count as unchanged.

Preventing compiler optimizations

✅ 74 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 24 skipped benchmarks1

Performance Changes

Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
⚠️ as_constant < 1 ns < 1 ns N/A
⚠️ constant_equal < 1 ns < 1 ns N/A
⚠️ constant_not_equal < 1 ns < 1 ns N/A
⚠️ access < 1 ns < 1 ns N/A
⚠️ runtime_equal < 1 ns < 1 ns N/A
⚠️ runtime_not_equal < 1 ns < 1 ns N/A

Comparing deps/rust-1.x (5975d0f) with main (ead965d)2

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. 24 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

  2. No successful run was found on main (2c1a8fd) during the generation of this report, so ead965d was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report.

Comment thread rust-toolchain.toml Outdated
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
[toolchain]
channel = "nightly-2026-08-03"
channel = "nightly-2026-08-06"

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Mise lockfile left on old nightly

High Severity

rust-toolchain.toml now pins nightly-2026-08-06, but .config/mise/mise.lock still records nightly-2026-08-03. mise reads the toolchain file (idiomatic_version_file_enable_tools) and CI runs mise install --locked, so the lockfile is stale relative to the requested toolchain and install can fail or resolve the old compiler.

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 940a5db. Configure here.

Comment thread rust-toolchain.toml Outdated
@hash-dependencies hash-dependencies Bot changed the title Update Rust to nightly-2026-08-10 Update Rust to nightly-2026-08-11 Aug 25, 2026
@hash-dependencies hash-dependencies Bot changed the title Update Rust to nightly-2026-08-11 Update Rust to nightly-2026-08-12 Aug 26, 2026
@hash-dependencies hash-dependencies Bot changed the title Update Rust to nightly-2026-08-12 Update Rust to nightly-2026-08-13 Aug 27, 2026
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Benchmark results

@rust/hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002 $$21.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 142 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.864 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002 $$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.30 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$35.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 337 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$13.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 94.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527 $$21.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$22.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 151 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52 $$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.44 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$4.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108 $$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.673 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.306 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$1.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.80 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.628 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2 $$2.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.761 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 91.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.283 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$2.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.377 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$2.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$2.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.002 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.64 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.329 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27 $$2.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.379 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$2.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 204 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$26.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 132 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 170 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.735 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$25.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 161 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$34.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 196 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.678 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$39.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 237 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$32.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 204 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$72.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 340 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.146 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$27.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 152 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$218 \mathrm{ms} \pm 720 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.530 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$8.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.230 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$8.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 47.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.032 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$8.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 54.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$8.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.006 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$8.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$8.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.879 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$8.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$8.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.776 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$8.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.424 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$8.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 62.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.012 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$8.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$8.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$8.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$8.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.611 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$8.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.408 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$8.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 66.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.481 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$9.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$8.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$8.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.104 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$6.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$49.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 306 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.121 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$94.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 531 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$56.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 411 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$64.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 431 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.251 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$70.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 470 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.450 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$74.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 441 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.500 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$37.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 181 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.727 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$60.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 336 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.045 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$42.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$49.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.315 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$52.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.47 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.99 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$51.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 393 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.120 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$97.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 470 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 418 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.20 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$426 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.37 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

@cursor cursor Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Stale Bugbot comment from a previous run.

Comment thread rust-toolchain.toml Outdated

@cursor cursor Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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

There are 2 total unresolved issues (including 1 from previous review).

Fix All in Cursor

❌ Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with cloud agents, enable autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Want reviews to match your repository better? Bugbot Learning can learn team-specific rules from PR activity. A team admin can enable Learning in the Cursor dashboard.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit c9d01ba. Configure here.

Comment thread rust-toolchain.toml Outdated
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
[toolchain]
channel = "nightly-2026-08-03"
channel = "nightly-2026-08-25"

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Mise lockfile rust pin desynced

Medium Severity

The rust-toolchain.toml channel is now nightly-2026-08-25, but .config/mise/mise.lock still pins rust to nightly-2026-08-03. CI runs mise install --locked, and the repo's Renovate config treats those two pins as a pair, so locked installs can fail or resolve a different toolchain than rustup.

Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit c9d01ba. Configure here.

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

Labels

area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area)

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

0 participants