Update npm package next [SECURITY]

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
next (source)	15.5.10 -> 15.5.13
next (source)	15.5.10 -> 15.5.14

---

Warning

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

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2026-29057

Summary

When Next.js rewrites proxy traffic to an external backend, a crafted DELETE/OPTIONS request using Transfer-Encoding: chunked could trigger request boundary disagreement between the proxy and backend. This could allow request smuggling through rewritten routes.

Impact

An attacker could smuggle a second request to unintended backend routes (for example, internal/admin endpoints), bypassing assumptions that only the configured rewrite destination/path is reachable. This does not impact applications hosted on providers that handle rewrites at the CDN level, such as Vercel.

Patches

The vulnerability originated in an upstream library vendored by Next.js. It is fixed by updating that dependency’s behavior so content-length: 0 is added only when both content-length and transfer-encoding are absent, and transfer-encoding is no longer removed in that code path.

Workarounds

If upgrade is not immediately possible:

• Block chunked DELETE/OPTIONS requests on rewritten routes at your edge/proxy.
• Enforce authentication/authorization on backend routes per our security guidance.

CVE-2026-27980

Summary

The default Next.js image optimization disk cache (/_next/image) did not have a configurable upper bound, allowing unbounded cache growth.

Impact

An attacker could generate many unique image-optimization variants and exhaust disk space, causing denial of service. Note that this does not impact platforms that have their own image optimization capabilities, such as Vercel.

Patches

Fixed by adding an LRU-backed disk cache with images.maximumDiskCacheSize, including eviction of least-recently-used entries when the limit is exceeded. Setting maximumDiskCacheSize: 0 disables disk caching.

Workarounds

If upgrade is not immediately possible:

• Periodically clean .next/cache/images.
• Reduce variant cardinality (e.g., tighten values for images.localPatterns, images.remotePatterns, and images.qualities)

---

Release Notes

vercel/next.js (next)

v15.5.13

Compare Source

[!NOTE]
This release is backporting bug fixes. It does not include all pending features/changes on canary.

Core Changes

• fix: patch http-proxy to prevent request smuggling in rewrites (See: CVE-2026-29057)

Credits

Huge thanks to @​ztanner for helping!

v15.5.12

Compare Source

[!NOTE]
This release is backporting bug fixes. It does not include all pending features/changes on canary.

• fix unlock in publish-native

This is a re-release of v15.5.11 applying the turbopack changes.

v15.5.11

Compare Source

[!NOTE]
This release is backporting bug fixes. It does not include all pending features/changes on canary.

Core Changes

• Tracing: Fix memory leak in span map (#​85529)
• fix: ensure LRU cache items have minimum size of 1 to prevent unbounded growth (#​89134)
• Turbopack: fix NFT tracing of sharp 0.34 (#​82340)
• Turbopack: support pattern into exports field (#​82757)
• NFT tracing fixes (#​84155 and #​85323)
• Turbopack: validate CSS without computing all paths (#​83810)
• feat: implement LRU cache with invocation ID scoping for minimal mode response cache (#​89129)

Credits

Huge thanks to @​timneutkens, @​mischnic, @​ztanner, and @​wyattjoh for helping!

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - "before 4am every weekday,every weekend" (UTC).

🚦 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.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 23, 2026 8:04pm

3 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign	Ignored	Preview	Mar 23, 2026 8:04pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Mar 23, 2026 8:04pm
petrinaut	Skipped	Comment	Mar 23, 2026 8:04pm

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Upgrades the core frontend framework (next) which can affect build/runtime behavior despite being a patch release. Change is dependency-only but touches security-sensitive request/rewrites and image caching behavior via upstream fixes.

Overview
Updates next from 15.5.10 to 15.5.14 in the frontend app and shared @local/hash-isomorphic-utils package.

Regenerates yarn.lock to pull in the corresponding @next/* (env + platform swc) patch versions.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit e555cf7. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the repo’s Next.js dependency versions to address recent security advisories in Next.js.

Changes:

• Bumped next in apps/hash-frontend from 15.5.10 to 16.1.7 (major version upgrade).
• Bumped next in libs/@local/hash-isomorphic-utils (devDependency) from 15.5.10 to 15.5.13.
• Updated lockfile resolution accordingly (via yarn.lock changes).

Technical Notes: The targeted Next.js versions include fixes for CVE-2026-27980 (bounded image optimizer disk cache via images.maximumDiskCacheSize) and CVE-2026-29057 (request-smuggling fix in rewrite proxy behavior).

_{🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎}

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 3 suggestions posted.

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

[cursor]

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 3 potential issues.

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.60%. Comparing base (c7d3aa5) to head (e555cf7).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8555   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.60%   62.60%           
=======================================
  Files        1317     1317           
  Lines      133975   133975           
  Branches     5517     5517           
=======================================
  Hits        83877    83877           
  Misses      49183    49183           
  Partials      915      915           

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.40% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <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.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing deps/js/npm-next-vulnerability (cb62559) with main (9cf2392)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (feb318b) during the generation of this report, so 9cf2392 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[github-actions]

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	$$28.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 239 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 116 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.96 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 395 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$16.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$25.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 236 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 216 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.985 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 108 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.033 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.986 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.148 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.624 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.69 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.222 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.498 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.618 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.969 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.20 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.366 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.431 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.327 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.187 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.023 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.273 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.199 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.19 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.586 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.603 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.344 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.754 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.408 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.547 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.357 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.460 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.570 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$47.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 235 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$84.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 337 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$51.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 301 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.276 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$56.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 511 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$64.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 416 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$47.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 249 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$426 \mathrm{ms} \pm 919 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.715 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 556 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$92.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 383 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.812 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$326 \mathrm{ms} \pm 696 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.0 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 140 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 124 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 127 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$20.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 115 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 178 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$20.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 126 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$20.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$27.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 169 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.662 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$36.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 363 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 291 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.502 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.977 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$37.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 284 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$34.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.312 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$35.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 370 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$36.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 278 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$36.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 242 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$36.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 264 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$97.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 432 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$150 \mathrm{ms} \pm 607 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.84 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 575 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 764 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.86 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 631 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 530 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 544 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.48 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$130 \mathrm{ms} \pm 442 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.582 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$111 \mathrm{ms} \pm 491 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 539 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$119 \mathrm{ms} \pm 486 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.044 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 543 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$138 \mathrm{ms} \pm 569 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$149 \mathrm{ms} \pm 546 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 550 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}162 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$569 \mathrm{ms} \pm 2.65 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}4.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[lunelson]

next versions should probably be on the exact same patch versions... although one here is only as a devDep so the security issue isn't even an active one

Your organization requires reapproval when changes are made, so Graphite has dismissed approvals. See the output of git range-diff at https://github.com/hashintel/hash/actions/runs/23456986680

[hash-worker]

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.