Skip to content

Update eslint npm packages#8677

Open
hash-worker[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
deps/js/eslint-npm-packages
Open

Update eslint npm packages#8677
hash-worker[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
deps/js/eslint-npm-packages

Conversation

@hash-worker
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@hash-worker hash-worker Bot commented Apr 30, 2026 •
edited
Loading

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Confidence
eslint-config-flat-gitignore 2.2.1 → 2.3.0 age confidence
eslint-import-resolver-node (source) 0.3.9 → 0.3.10 age confidence
eslint-plugin-react-hooks (source) 7.0.1 → 7.1.1 age confidence
eslint-plugin-storybook (source) 10.3.1 → 10.4.0 age confidence

Warning

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

Release Notes

antfu/eslint-config-flat-gitignore (eslint-config-flat-gitignore)

v2.3.0

Compare Source

   🚀 Features
    View changes on GitHub
import-js/eslint-plugin-import (eslint-import-resolver-node)

v0.3.10

Compare Source

  • [deps] update is-core-module, resolve
  • [meta] add repository.directory field
  • [refactor] avoid hoisting
facebook/react (eslint-plugin-react-hooks)

v7.1.1

Compare Source

Note: 7.1.0 accidentally removed the component-hook-factories rule, causing errors for users who referenced it in their ESLint config. This is now fixed.

  • Add deprecated no-op component-hook-factories rule for backwards compatibility. (@​mofeiZ in #​36307)

v7.1.0

Compare Source

This release adds ESLint v10 support, improves performance by skipping compilation for non-React files, and includes compiler lint improvements including better set-state-in-effect detection, improved ref validation, and more helpful error reporting.

storybookjs/storybook (eslint-plugin-storybook)

v10.4.0

Compare Source

AI-assisted setup, change-aware review, and stronger framework support

Storybook 10.4 contains hundreds of fixes and improvements including:

  • 🤖 Agentic Setup: New CLI workflow for AI-assisted Storybook setup and onboarding
  • 🔍 Change review: Sidebar filtering to highlight new, modified, and related stories based on git changes
  • 🧭 Sidebar review tools: Status filtering, URL-persisted filters, and clearer review signals in the sidebar
  • ⚛️ TanStack React: New @storybook/tanstack-react framework with routing and server function support
  • 🧩 React MCP: Faster, more accurate component docgen powered by the TypeScript Language Server
  • 📱 React Native: Zero config RN project initialization
  • 🤝 Sharing: Easily publish and share your local Storybook with teammates, powered by Chromatic
List of all updates

v10.3.6

Compare Source

v10.3.5

Compare Source

[!NOTE]
Version >=0.5.0 of @storybook/addon-mcp enables component manifests again. If you're upgrading Storybook from version >= 10.3.0 to >= 10.3.5 and are using the MCP addon, you should also upgrade @storybook/addon-mcp to keep the docs toolset in the MCP server.

v10.3.4

Compare Source

v10.3.3

Compare Source

v10.3.2

Compare Source

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.

👻 Immortal: This PR will be recreated if closed unmerged. Get config help if that's undesired.

  • 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 April 30, 2026 01:05
@vercel
Copy link
Copy Markdown

vercel Bot commented Apr 30, 2026 •
edited
Loading

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

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
hash Error Error May 28, 2026 9:33am
hashdotdesign-tokens Error Error May 28, 2026 9:33am
petrinaut Error Error Comment May 28, 2026 9:33am

@cursor
Copy link
Copy Markdown

cursor Bot commented Apr 30, 2026 •
edited
Loading

PR Summary

Low Risk
Dev-only tooling version pins; main effect may be new or changed lint findings in CI, not runtime behavior.

Overview
Bumps ESLint-related devDependencies across the shared @local/eslint package and two UI libraries that declare eslint-plugin-storybook locally.

In @local/eslint, versions move for flat-gitignore config (2.2.1 → 2.3.0), Node import resolver (0.3.9 → 0.3.10), react-hooks plugin (7.0.1 → 7.1.1), and Storybook ESLint plugin (10.3.1 → 10.4.0). @hashintel/query-editor and @hashintel/type-editor align their direct eslint-plugin-storybook devDependency to 10.4.0 as well.

No ESLint config or source files are modified in this diff—only package.json version pins.

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7a89f6c. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added area/deps Relates to third-party dependencies (area) area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > frontend Owned by the @frontend team type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team area/apps > hash.design Affects the `hash.design` design site (app) labels Apr 30, 2026
@augmentcode
Copy link
Copy Markdown

augmentcode Bot commented Apr 30, 2026

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: This PR updates ESLint-related npm dependencies used across the monorepo.

Changes:

  • Bumps eslint-plugin-storybook from 10.3.1 to 10.3.5 in several packages
  • Updates eslint-config-flat-gitignore from 2.2.1 to 2.3.0 in @local/eslint
  • Updates eslint-import-resolver-node from 0.3.9 to 0.3.10 in @local/eslint
  • Regenerates yarn.lock to reflect the updated dependency graph

Technical Notes: Versions remain pinned/consistent across the shared ESLint config package and consuming packages to keep linting behavior aligned.

🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎

augmentcode[bot]
augmentcode Bot reviewed Apr 30, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@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
Copy Markdown

codspeed-hq Bot commented Apr 30, 2026

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

Comparing deps/js/eslint-npm-packages (0953197) with main (3ec4a42)1

Open in CodSpeed

Footnotes

  1. No successful run was found on main (79eda1e) during the generation of this report, so 3ec4a42 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

@codecov
Copy link
Copy Markdown

codecov Bot commented Apr 30, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.49%. Comparing base (adb5688) to head (0953197).
⚠️ Report is 25 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8677      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.50%   62.49%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1318     1318              
  Lines      134234   134234              
  Branches     5520     5520              
==========================================
- Hits        83906    83893      -13     
- Misses      49415    49426      +11     
- Partials      913      915       +2
Flag Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts 1.40% <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 9.63% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi 0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack 90.87% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec 84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net 96.18% <ø> (-0.21%) ⬇️
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 2.52% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization 62.34% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store 26.38% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store 37.76% <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 87.23% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest 29.69% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core 82.29% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics 72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval 69.13% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir 89.06% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir 92.64% <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.

@graphite-app graphite-app Bot requested review from a team April 30, 2026 01:30
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Apr 30, 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 $$26.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 137 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.577 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.017 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001 $$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 70.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.677 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314 $$38.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.642 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$11.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 86.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.788 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526 $$22.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 163 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078 $$27.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 135 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.853 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033 $$13.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.070 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102 $$3.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.250 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.52 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.215 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51 $$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.373 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269 $$4.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.902 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107 $$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.51 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133 $$3.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.120 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63 $$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.778 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2 $$2.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.074 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$1.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.330 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1 $$2.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.304 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8 $$2.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.807 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.63 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.112 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3 $$2.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.145 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52 $$2.44 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.190 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.03 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.089 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25 $$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.500 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94 $$2.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.057 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26 $$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.146 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66 $$2.67 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.755 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1 $$2.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.670 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29 $$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.591 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth 1 entities $$50.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 254 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.210 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 10 entities $$40.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.755 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 25 entities $$44.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 165 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.519 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 5 entities $$48.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.30 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-4.619 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth 50 entities $$56.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 302 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.282 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 1 entities $$57.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 409 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.366 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 10 entities $$48.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 198 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.991 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 25 entities $$93.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 323 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.718 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 5 entities $$40.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 247 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.157 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth 50 entities $$249 \mathrm{ms} \pm 649 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.166 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 1 entities $$17.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.024 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 10 entities $$18.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 120 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.368 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 25 entities $$18.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 109 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.630 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 5 entities $$17.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.542 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth 50 entities $$23.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 143 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_id 1 entities $$17.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.988 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10 entities $$17.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.867 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 100 entities $$17.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.205 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 1000 entities $$19.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id 10000 entities $$25.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 196 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.765 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ 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 $$31.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 279 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.288 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1 $$34.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 240 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1 $$32.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 297 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.029 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1 $$32.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 245 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.431 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2 $$32.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 299 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1 $$33.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.983 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1 $$31.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 316 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.685 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1 $$32.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.882 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
entity_by_id entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1 $$33.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 277 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.61 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba $$6.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.483 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
entity_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$95.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 385 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.474 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$141 \mathrm{ms} \pm 546 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.673 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 379 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.391 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$112 \mathrm{ms} \pm 350 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.384 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 433 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.553 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$124 \mathrm{ms} \pm 417 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.142 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=0 0 $$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 431 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.563 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=255 1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true $$127 \mathrm{ms} \pm 504 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.161 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false $$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 410 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.395 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 430 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.093 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 513 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.274 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property traversal_paths=2 1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true $$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 423 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.332 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function Value Mean Flame graphs
full_test query-limited $$166 \mathrm{ms} \pm 548 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
full_test query-unlimited $$136 \mathrm{ms} \pm 841 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-limited $$37.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 171 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.180 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph
linked_queries query-unlimited $$513 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.24 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.197 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$ Flame Graph

lunelson
lunelson previously approved these changes Apr 30, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@lunelson lunelson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should work fine

@hash-worker hash-worker Bot added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 30, 2026
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a conflict with the base branch Apr 30, 2026
@hash-worker hash-worker Bot enabled auto-merge April 30, 2026 11:15
@hash-worker hash-worker Bot force-pushed the deps/js/eslint-npm-packages branch from 0953197 to 2654f44 Compare April 30, 2026 11:15
@hash-worker
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

hash-worker Bot commented Apr 30, 2026

⚠️ Artifact update problem

Renovate failed to update an artifact related to this branch. You probably do not want to merge this PR as-is.

♻ Renovate will retry this branch, including artifacts, only when one of the following happens:

  • any of the package files in this branch needs updating, or
  • the branch becomes conflicted, or
  • you click the rebase/retry checkbox if found above, or
  • you rename this PR's title to start with "rebase!" to trigger it manually

The artifact failure details are included below:

File name: yarn.lock
error This project's package.json defines "packageManager": "yarn@4.12.0". However the current global version of Yarn is 1.22.22.

Presence of the "packageManager" field indicates that the project is meant to be used with Corepack, a tool included by default with all official Node.js distributions starting from 16.9 and 14.19.
Corepack must currently be enabled by running corepack enable in your terminal. For more information, check out https://yarnpkg.com/corepack.

@github-actions github-actions Bot removed the area/apps > hash.design Affects the `hash.design` design site (app) label Apr 30, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot dismissed lunelson’s stale review April 30, 2026 11:16

Latest approval commit 0953197 is not an ancestor of 2654f44, indicating rewritten history after approval

@hash-worker hash-worker Bot force-pushed the deps/js/eslint-npm-packages branch from 2654f44 to 285ee1f Compare April 30, 2026 22:54
@hash-worker hash-worker Bot force-pushed the deps/js/eslint-npm-packages branch from 285ee1f to 20a437d Compare May 1, 2026 18:37
@hash-worker hash-worker Bot force-pushed the deps/js/eslint-npm-packages branch from 20a437d to 6e5bad3 Compare May 13, 2026 14:25
@hash-worker hash-worker Bot force-pushed the deps/js/eslint-npm-packages branch from 6e5bad3 to 533c802 Compare May 22, 2026 12:24
@hash-worker hash-worker Bot force-pushed the deps/js/eslint-npm-packages branch from 533c802 to 7a89f6c Compare May 28, 2026 09:31
cursor[bot]
cursor Bot reviewed May 28, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursor cursor Bot left a comment

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.

Fix All in Cursor

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

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7a89f6c. Configure here.

Comment thread libs/@local/eslint/package.json
"eslint-plugin-react-hooks": "7.0.1",
"eslint-plugin-storybook": "10.3.1",
"eslint-plugin-react-hooks": "7.1.1",
"eslint-plugin-storybook": "10.4.0",
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursor cursor Bot May 28, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Storybook plugin version mismatches PR description target

Medium Severity

eslint-plugin-storybook is updated to 10.4.0 across all three package.json files, but the PR description specifies the target version as 10.3.6. Version 10.4.0 is a minor version bump (not a patch), and the PR's release notes only cover changes up to 10.3.6, meaning any breaking changes or new behaviors in 10.3.7–10.4.0 have not been reviewed.

Additional Locations (2)
Fix in Cursor Fix in Web

Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7a89f6c. Configure here.

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

Reviewers

@cursor cursor[bot] cursor[bot] left review comments

@lunelson lunelson lunelson left review comments

+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/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 type/eng > frontend Owned by the @frontend team

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@lunelson @CiaranMn