[indietyp]

🌟 Purpose

Upgrade to stable Effect 4.0.0. Straightforward move, allows us to have less dependencies, use the new maintained version that has LTS built-in, required to make #10013 work.

🔍 Changes

• Synchronous wire codecs return Result instead of Either. Callers use Effect.fromResult when composing those results into effects.
• Decoder.decode and Encoder.encode accept Schema.Codec with separate decoding and encoding service requirements. Schema failures use Schema.SchemaError, and JSON codecs use Schema.fromJsonString.
• Transaction.read consumes responses through Stream.fromQueue, and dropping a transaction ends its queue with Queue.end.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hash	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:37am UTC
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:37am UTC
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:37am UTC
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Oct 21, 2026 11:37am UTC

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 15.93%

1 warning

⚠️ Unable to measure the execution of 6 benchmarks

These benchmarks measured no execution time, so their results are not comparable and count as unchanged. This usually happens when the compiler removes the code under test.

Prevent compiler optimizations

See affected benchmarks

❌ 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]	137.2 ns	166.4 ns	-17.53%
❌	bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]	174.7 ns	203.9 ns	-14.31%

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing bm/fe-1861-upgrade-to-effect-4 (d047d06) with bm/fe-1862-upgrade-to-vite-5 (f79dc8d)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on bm/fe-1862-upgrade-to-vite-5 (4e0c06b) during the generation of this report, so ca9cf75 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 54.49102% with 76 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.03%. Comparing base (4e0c06b) to head (d047d06).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
libs/@local/graph/sdk/typescript/src/harpc.ts	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
...al/harpc/client/typescript/src/net/internal/dns.ts	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
...pc/client/typescript/src/net/internal/transport.ts	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
...ocal/harpc/client/typescript/src/net/Connection.ts	12.50%	7 Missing ⚠️
...t/src/wire-protocol/models/request/RequestFlags.ts	25.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...l/harpc/client/typescript/src/net/NetworkLogger.ts	25.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...pt/src/wire-protocol/models/request/RequestBody.ts	78.57%	3 Missing ⚠️
...s/@local/harpc/client/typescript/src/net/Client.ts	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
...lient/typescript/src/net/internal/networkLogger.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...client/typescript/src/types/ProcedureDescriptor.ts	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
... and 18 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@                       Coverage Diff                        @@
##           bm/fe-1862-upgrade-to-vite-5   #10011      +/-   ##
================================================================
- Coverage                         68.03%   68.03%   -0.01%     
================================================================
  Files                              2006     2006              
  Lines                            206287   206286       -1     
  Branches                           8815     8817       +2     
================================================================
- Hits                             140354   140348       -6     
- Misses                            64258    64262       +4     
- Partials                           1675     1676       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	7.46% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	15.59% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	41.73% <ø> (ø)
durable-kernel	86.65% <ø> (ø)
error-stack	90.55% <ø> (ø)
harpc-codec	84.61% <ø> (ø)
harpc-net	96.28% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
harpc-tower	67.11% <ø> (ø)
harpc-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
harpc-wire-protocol	93.85% <ø> (ø)
hash-codec	72.09% <ø> (ø)
hash-config	83.57% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph	21.07% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-api	39.82% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-atlas	80.00% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
hash-graph-authentication	96.71% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-authorization	68.47% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-embeddings	91.92% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-postgres-store	31.60% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-store	50.82% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-temporal-versioning	50.53% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
hash-graph-validation	85.37% <ø> (ø)
hash-integrations-definition	95.05% <ø> (ø)
hash-middleware	87.62% <ø> (ø)
hash-secret	99.50% <ø> (ø)
hashql-ast	90.01% <ø> (ø)
hashql-compiletest	28.71% <ø> (ø)
hashql-core	81.41% <ø> (ø)
hashql-diagnostics	72.85% <ø> (ø)
hashql-eval	81.55% <ø> (ø)
hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (ø)
hashql-mir	87.22% <ø> (ø)
hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.77% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.07% <57.96%> (-0.43%)	⬇️
local.hash-backend-utils	6.21% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	9.79% <0.00%> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	32.22% <ø> (ø)
problematic	90.09% <ø> (ø)
railroad-plugin	45.28% <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.

[github-actions]

Benchmark results

hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$28.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 326 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.972 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$12.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 157 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.585 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 446 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 206 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.38 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$24.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 256 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.013 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 289 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.879 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.571 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 166 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.427 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.242 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.297 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.160 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.653 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 47.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.50 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.446 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.082 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.74 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.533 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.175 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.479 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.038 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.028 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.710 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.64 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.407 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.282 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.123 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.528 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.120 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.885 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$32.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 262 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.047 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$72.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 586 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.285 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$36.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 318 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.130 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$39.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.582 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$44.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 463 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 243 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.241 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$426 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.69 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.624 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$91.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 724 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$79.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 644 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.214 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$280 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.13 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.488 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.013 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.006 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 99.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.189 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.188 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.304 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.926 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.681 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.008 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.939 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 97.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.345 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.682 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.384 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$11.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 99.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.913 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.158 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.532 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.357 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.014 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 90.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.207 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.27 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.598 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$56.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 555 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.253 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 715 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.546 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$62.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 564 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.080 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$71.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 474 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.573 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$80.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 718 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.691 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$87.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 818 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.988 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$45.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 371 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.337 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$73.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 559 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.296 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$52.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 435 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.481 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 476 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.921 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$62.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 500 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.790 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 501 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.929 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 926 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 796 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$24.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 244 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$516 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.82 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[cursor]

PR Summary

High Risk
Large-scale migration of RPC/networking wire codecs, streams, and schema decoding on a major Effect release; regressions could affect binary protocol compatibility or runtime behavior despite extensive test updates.

Overview
Upgrades the monorepo from Effect 3.21 to Effect 4.0.3, including hash-api, @local/eslint, @local/hash-graph-sdk, and @local/harpc-client. The custom Yarn patch for @effect/vitest is removed in favor of @effect/vitest / @effect/platform-node 4.0.3.

The harpc client and graph SDK are updated to Effect 4 APIs: synchronous wire/binary codecs return Result (composed via Effect.fromResult), Either/Chunk-style patterns are replaced with Result, arrays, and Stream.flattenIterable, and Schema moves to Codec, fromJsonString / encodeEffect / decodeEffect, and Schema.SchemaError. Services use Context.Service instead of GenericTag, layers use Layer.effect, queues use Queue.end and typed shutdown causes, and property tests use Arbitrary instead of FastCheck.

hash-api RPC wiring switches to Logger.layer and References.MinimumLogLevel, and invalid echo input uses Cause.IllegalArgumentError. Tests and wire-protocol helpers adopt NodeServices, ChildProcessSpawner, and updated decode/encode expectations for JSON schema errors.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7eaa3b6. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[cursor]

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

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

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit e0fd993. Configure here.}

[cursor]

Forked connection fibers die immediately

High Severity

Effect.fork was renamed to Effect.forkChild, but Effect 4 child fibers are interrupted when the parent succeeds. makeUnchecked and send return right after forking, so the response reader and request writer are cancelled immediately and RPC traffic never completes.

Additional Locations (2)

• libs/@local/harpc/client/typescript/src/net/Connection.ts#L315-L323
• libs/@local/harpc/client/typescript/src/net/internal/dns.ts#L128-L129

 

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit e0fd993. Configure here.}

[lunelson]

Not sure why this pinged Design System, it doesn't seem to overlap?

[lunelson]

I took a run at an agent review on this one, and came up with a handful of comments that may or may not be of value to you. They are posted as me but they are Claude. Main thing seems to be the "lag-drop question".

It also noted one follow-up outside this diff: the shared Renovate config (hashintel/actions) excludes @effect/vitest from the effect group. Now that @effect/vitest@4 requires effect ^4.0.3, they need to update together, so you could remove the !/@effect/vitest/ exclusion.

[lunelson]

When a transaction lags and gets dropped, the reader now gets a cut-off response with no error. The lag timeout (the catchTag("TimeoutError") above) calls drop, which ends the queue normally. Response.decode then treats a body with no end-of-response packet as complete. Before this PR the single-packet read (see the Transaction.ts comment) hid this. Now it can actually happen.

Suggestion: since v4 queues carry a typed error, fail the queue on the lag path (e.g. Queue.fail(queue, new TransactionLaggedError(...))) and keep Queue.end for a normal end of response. If it's out of scope here, a follow-up ticket works too.

[lunelson]

These test-data generators now use effect/Arbitrary, which is marked @stability unstable. They're also built when the module is imported: the docs say derivation "is immediate and throws" when it can't compile. These modules are on hash-api's import path, so an effect minor release could break hash-api at startup. Before, they were lazy (fc) => … functions. Could we make them thunks again, or move them into tests/? The same applies to every arbitrary in types/ and wire-protocol/models/.

[indietyp]

Why? This is the exact same thing that already exists in e.g. zod, Effect.Schema, etc. We pin our dependencies, so minor changes will not silently take effect, and the arbitrary derivation - much like w/ schemas are core to the actual types defined. (also note that Arbitrary itself has been stable for quite a while, so I don't see much of a risk)