FE-1945: Introduce shared strict Oxlint configuration by indietyp · Pull Request #10012 · hashintel/hash

indietyp · 2026-10-12T19:36:35Z

🌟 Purpose

Currently we have n different configs:

brunch (oxlint): strict and loose
petrinaut (oxlint)
eslint strict (harpc)
eslint legacy (everything else)

The long-term desire is to move to oxlint instead of eslint. We first start with a maximally restrictive set, much like in Rust, and then allow the things that we do not want. In liue of #10013, the effect, vitest and node have already been tuned, with the next and react ones needing some additional work. That is expected to be backported once other libraries are ported.

🔍 Changes

createConfig selects the runtime and framework rules, including Effect's native strict preset. Existing Oxlint consumers share tool versions through the Yarn catalog without adopting the new policy automatically.
The hash plugin checks naming, visibility and options-object parameters. Type assertions, lint suppressions and literal rule settings require explanations. Rule severities use allow, warn and deny, with autofixes for equivalent ESLint spellings.
yarn prepare:oxlint patches Oxlint for the Effect checks without replacing TypeScript or adding an install hook. Turbo runs preparation without caching because its artifact cache cannot restore changes inside node_modules.
Packages' lint:oxlint tasks run through Turbo and the affected-package lint workflow. See libs/@local/oxlint/README.md for adoption and configuration examples.

⚠️ Known issues

React and Next.js selections are provisional. The tuned configurations cover vanilla TypeScript, Effect and Vitest. Missing are also: storybook, ladle, and such.

vercel · 2026-10-12T19:36:46Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hash	Ready	Preview	Oct 30, 2026 1:39pm UTC
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Oct 30, 2026 1:39pm UTC
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Oct 30, 2026 1:39pm UTC

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Oct 30, 2026 1:39pm UTC

codecov · 2026-10-12T19:51:58Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.05%. Comparing base (ee3f67b) to head (c9769e0).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                       Coverage Diff                       @@
##           bm/fe-1861-upgrade-to-effect-4   #10012   +/-   ##
===============================================================
  Coverage                           59.05%   59.05%           
===============================================================
  Files                                1474     1474           
  Lines                              133539   133539           
  Branches                             6905     6905           
===============================================================
+ Hits                                78860    78861    +1     
  Misses                              53611    53611           
+ Partials                             1068     1067    -1

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`9.48% <ø> (ø)`
apps.hash-api	`16.00% <ø> (ø)`
durable-kernel	`86.65% <ø> (ø)`
hash-crypto	`94.76% <ø> (ø)`
hash-graph	`21.66% <ø> (ø)`
hash-graph-api	`48.69% <ø> (ø)`
hash-graph-atlas	`80.01% <ø> (+<0.01%)`	⬆️
hash-graph-authentication	`96.83% <ø> (ø)`
hash-graph-embeddings	`91.92% <ø> (ø)`
hash-graph-postgres-store	`31.48% <ø> (ø)`
hash-graph-store	`50.78% <ø> (ø)`
hash-graph-validation	`85.14% <ø> (ø)`
hash-middleware	`87.62% <ø> (ø)`
hashql-compiletest	`28.71% <ø> (ø)`
hashql-eval	`81.55% <ø> (ø)`
local.harpc-client	`56.88% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-backend-utils	`18.82% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-graph-sdk	`9.79% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	`35.27% <ø> (ø)`

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

codspeed · 2026-10-12T19:52:48Z

Merging this PR will improve performance by 18.95%

3 warnings, 1 note

⚠️ 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

⚠️ 1 benchmark is dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 2 benchmarks with a significant change ran on different hardware

Their base and head results were measured on machines with a different CPU, core count or memory, so the changes might not come from the code. Run base and head on the same runner type.

Learn more about Macro Runners

See affected benchmarks

ℹ️ 6 benchmarks have no flamegraph

The flamegraph wasn't generated: no execution data was recorded while the benchmark ran. Make sure the compiler didn't optimize the benchmark out.

See affected benchmarks

⚡ 2 improved benchmarks
✅ 96 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
⚡	`bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[64]`	166.4 ns	137.2 ns	+21.26%
⚡	`bit_matrix/dense/iter_row[200]`	203.9 ns	174.7 ns	+16.69%

Tip

Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

_{Comparing bm/fe-1945-introduce-shared-strict-oxlint-configuration (c9769e0) with bm/fe-1861-upgrade-to-effect-4 (ee3f67b)}

github-actions · 2026-10-12T21:03:53Z

Benchmark results

hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2002	$$22.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.632 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$11.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 125 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.664 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$38.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 430 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$12.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 175 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.719 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$22.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 344 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$24.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 178 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 172 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.1 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.35 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.51 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$4.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.633 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.219 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$3.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 33.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.349 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.39 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.032 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.179 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.82 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.814 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.81 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$2.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.63 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.897 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.492 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.078 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$26.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 193 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.629 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$56.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 697 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.834 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$29.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 750 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.457 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$31.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.051 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$33.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 246 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$26.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 181 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.885 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$330 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.23 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}0.428 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$69.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 491 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.827 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$58.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 464 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.302 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$228 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.16 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.735 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$8.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 80.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.68 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$8.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.066 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$8.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.850 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$8.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.591 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$8.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 57.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.486 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$9.07 \mathrm{ms} \pm 474 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$8.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 51.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.976 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$8.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 47.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.011 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$8.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.738 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$8.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.103 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$8.87 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.11 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$8.76 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$8.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.141 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$8.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.093 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$8.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 55.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.458 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$8.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 79.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$8.83 \mathrm{ms} \pm 59.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.061 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$8.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$8.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 82.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.018 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$6.37 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.765 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$51.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 488 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.822 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$94.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 598 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.514 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$55.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 430 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.215 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$64.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 506 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.920 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$73.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.00 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$77.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 595 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$39.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 208 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$62.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 380 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.43 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$45.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 275 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$52.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 358 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$52.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 521 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.877 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$53.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 388 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$93.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 591 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.60 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 629 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 157 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.220 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$407 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.31 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-4.194 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

github-actions · 2026-10-21T11:24:09Z

Dependency Review

The following issues were found:

❌ 1 vulnerable package(s)
✅ 0 package(s) with incompatible licenses
✅ 0 package(s) with invalid SPDX license definitions
⚠️ 1 package(s) with unknown licenses.

View full job summary

indietyp added this pull request to stack #9934 October 12, 2026 19:36

indietyp temporarily deployed to pull-request October 12, 2026 19:38 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

indietyp changed the title ~~bm/fe 1945 introduce shared strict oxlint configuration~~ FE-1945: Introduce shared strict Oxlint configuration Oct 12, 2026

github-advanced-security Bot found potential problems Oct 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread libs/@local/oxlint/src/rules/naming-conventions.ts Dismissed

Comment thread libs/@local/oxlint/src/rules/naming-conventions.ts Dismissed

Comment thread libs/@local/oxlint/src/rules/no-property-modifiers.ts Dismissed

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut October 12, 2026 19:41

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut-docs October 12, 2026 19:49

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash October 12, 2026 19:52

View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/fe-1945-introduce-shared-strict-oxlint-configuration branch from 57c3893 to 8a50ccf Compare October 13, 2026 08:10

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut October 13, 2026 08:14

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut-docs October 13, 2026 08:14

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash October 13, 2026 08:24

View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/fe-1945-introduce-shared-strict-oxlint-configuration branch from 8a50ccf to 7f855b4 Compare October 13, 2026 08:39

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut October 13, 2026 08:42

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash October 13, 2026 08:42

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut-docs October 13, 2026 08:43

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut-docs October 19, 2026 14:41

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut October 19, 2026 14:41

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash October 19, 2026 14:51

View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/fe-1945-introduce-shared-strict-oxlint-configuration branch from ed6857a to 99fe67b Compare October 19, 2026 15:21

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut October 19, 2026 15:25

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut-docs October 19, 2026 15:25

View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/fe-1945-introduce-shared-strict-oxlint-configuration branch from 99fe67b to 021e08e Compare October 19, 2026 15:29

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut October 19, 2026 15:33

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut-docs October 19, 2026 15:33

View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash October 19, 2026 15:38

View deployment

indietyp removed this pull request from stack #9934 October 19, 2026 17:02

semgrep-code-hashintel Bot reviewed Oct 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread yarn.lock Resolved

semgrep-code-hashintel Bot reviewed Oct 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread yarn.lock Resolved

github-advanced-security Bot found potential problems Oct 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread yarn.lock Fixed

Comment thread yarn.lock Fixed

indietyp added 13 commits October 30, 2026 14:24

feat: add shared oxlint config and rules

ef8de4d

feat: prefer Rust rule severity names

2b05b64

chore: use Rust severity vocabulary in Oxlint configs

f695721

chore: refine oxlint framework configuration

136aa96

feat: resolve inherited oxlint config fields

e2e7894

chore: strengthen lint and return type checks

1d63161

feat: add no-complex-ternary rule

44d2e7f

chore: align Effect tests and numeric literals in Oxlint

5742ff8

chore: forbid runtime expect in type tests

2621c15

chore: exempt test files from max-lines

29106ee

feat: require ticket IDs in TODO comments

4165c74

fix: check TODO tickets in JSDoc comments

68617bc

chore: disable noImplicitReturns in tsconfigs

c9769e0

Conversation

indietyp commented Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

🌟 Purpose

🔍 Changes

⚠️ Known issues

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

codspeed Bot commented Oct 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will improve performance by 18.95%

Performance Changes

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 12, 2026

Benchmark results

hash-graph-benches – Integrations

policy_resolution_large

policy_resolution_medium

policy_resolution_none

policy_resolution_small

read_scaling_complete

read_scaling_linkless

representative_read_entity

representative_read_entity_type

representative_read_multiple_entities

scenarios

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 21, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Dependency Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This branch was successfully deployed

Reviewers

Uh oh!

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

indietyp commented Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

vercel Bot commented Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed Bot commented Oct 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Oct 21, 2026 •

edited

Loading