SRE-613: Disable BuildKit provenance attestation to fix Inspector scanning

[TimDiekmann]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

BuildKit's default provenance attestation wraps single-platform images in OCI Image Indexes. AWS Inspector scans child manifests but tags (production, staging) and usage tracking (inUseCount) sit on the Image Index — not on the scanned children. This makes it impossible to correlate CVE findings with deployed images, rendering alerting unusable.

Setting provenance: false produces plain single-platform manifests that Inspector can fully scan with tag and deployment context.

🔗 Related links

• SRE-613 (internal)
• SRE-614: Image signing evaluation (internal) — follow-up for proper signing/provenance
• moby/buildkit#3499 — BuildKit provenance breaks ECR scanning
• aws/containers-roadmap#1683 — Inspector doesn't support OCI Image Index

🔍 What does this change?

• Adds provenance: false to the CD build action (.github/actions/docker-build-push/action.yml) — this is the critical change affecting ECR images scanned by Inspector
• Adds provenance: false to all CI build steps (.github/actions/build-docker-images/action.yml) for consistency

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

This PR:

• does not modify any publishable blocks or libraries, or modifications do not need publishing

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

The changes in this PR:

• are internal and do not require a docs change

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

The changes in this PR:

• do not affect the execution graph

🐾 Next steps

• SRE-614: Evaluate and implement proper image signing (AWS Signer / Cosign) as a separate concern from manifest format

🛡 What tests cover this?

• The next CD run on main will produce plain manifests — verifiable by inspecting the ECR image manifest type
• No unit tests applicable (GitHub Actions workflow config)

❓ How to test this?

1. Merge to main and wait for the backend CD workflow to run
2. In ECR, inspect any newly pushed image manifest — it should be a plain image manifest, not an OCI Image Index
3. Verify Inspector findings now show tags and inUseCount on the scanned images

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 29, 2026 0:48am
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 29, 2026 0:48am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 29, 2026 0:48am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Mar 29, 2026 0:48am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes the produced container image manifest/attestation behavior across CI and CD builds, which can affect downstream scanning, signing, and supply-chain metadata expectations. No application runtime code changes, but release pipeline outputs will differ.

Overview
Disables BuildKit provenance attestations by setting provenance: false on all docker/build-push-action steps used by both CI (.github/actions/build-docker-images/action.yml) and CD/ECR publishing (.github/actions/docker-build-push/action.yml).

This forces builds to emit plain single-platform image manifests (instead of OCI image indexes with provenance), improving compatibility with downstream image scanning/correlation tools.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 60760b1. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Disables BuildKit provenance attestations so pushed images remain plain single-platform manifests that AWS Inspector can scan with tag/deployment context.
Changes: Adds provenance: false to all CI and CD uses of docker/build-push-action in the repo’s composite GitHub Actions.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 62.50%. Comparing base (58c1d8b) to head (60760b1).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8596   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.50%   62.50%           
=======================================
  Files        1318     1318           
  Lines      134222   134222           
  Branches     5517     5517           
=======================================
+ Hits        83893    83894    +1     
+ Misses      49414    49413    -1     
  Partials      915      915           

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	96.19% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
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	26.39% <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.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing t/sre-613-replace-buildkit-provenance-embedding-with-aws-signer-for (60760b1) with main (82b4650)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (52299fd) during the generation of this report, so 82b4650 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	$$27.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 155 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.342 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.34 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.110 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.556 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$42.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 321 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.208 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.444 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$23.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 157 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.303 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 183 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.02 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.576 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.37 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.770 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.186 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.010 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.405 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.952 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.06 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.387 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.756 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.000 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.556 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.278 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.494 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.431 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.341 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.564 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.093 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.552 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.524 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.73 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.700 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.217 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.829 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.038 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.98 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.185 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.323 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$43.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 153 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.966 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$82.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 371 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.33 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$49.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 259 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$53.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 467 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.47 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$59.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 473 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.593 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$45.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 212 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.12 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$437 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.29 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}3.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$98.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 505 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.366 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$91.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 413 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.95 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$286 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.11 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.432 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 104 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$19.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 140 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.858 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.915 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.048 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$23.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 177 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$18.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 102 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.243 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 133 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.816 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 106 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.445 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 94.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$25.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 160 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.006 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$33.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$32.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.855 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.555 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 296 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.013 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$33.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.267 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$33.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 302 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.860 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$32.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 266 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.723 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$33.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 303 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.738 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$33.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 297 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.446 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 49.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.959 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$91.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 501 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.520 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$141 \mathrm{ms} \pm 602 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.168 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$99.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 601 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.035 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 703 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.009 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 633 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.010 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 649 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.109 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 584 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.249 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$127 \mathrm{ms} \pm 490 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.113 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 578 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.066 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$115 \mathrm{ms} \pm 544 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.183 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 459 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.254 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$117 \mathrm{ms} \pm 577 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.397 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$140 \mathrm{ms} \pm 550 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.303 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$150 \mathrm{ms} \pm 634 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.578 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 530 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.404 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$575 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.00 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-3.083 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph