Update npm package lodash-es to v4.18.1 [SECURITY]

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
lodash-es (source)	4.17.23 -> 4.18.1

---

Warning

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

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2026-4800

Impact

The fix for CVE-2021-23337 added validation for the variable option in _.template but did not apply the same validation to options.imports key names. Both paths flow into the same Function() constructor sink.

When an application passes untrusted input as options.imports key names, an attacker can inject default-parameter expressions that execute arbitrary code at template compilation time.

Additionally, _.template uses assignInWith to merge imports, which enumerates inherited properties via for..in. If Object.prototype has been polluted by any other vector, the polluted keys are copied into the imports object and passed to Function().

Patches

Users should upgrade to version 4.18.0.

The fix applies two changes:

1. Validate importsKeys against the existing reForbiddenIdentifierChars regex (same check already used for the variable option)
2. Replace assignInWith with assignWith when merging imports, so only own properties are enumerated

Workarounds

Do not pass untrusted input as key names in options.imports. Only use developer-controlled, static key names.

CVE-2026-2950

Impact

Lodash versions 4.17.23 and earlier are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. The fix for CVE-2025-13465 only guards against string key members, so an attacker can bypass the check by passing array-wrapped path segments. This allows deletion of properties from built-in prototypes such as Object.prototype, Number.prototype, and String.prototype.

The issue permits deletion of prototype properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior.

Patches

This issue is patched in 4.18.0.

Workarounds

None. Upgrade to the patched version.

---

Release Notes

lodash/lodash (lodash-es)

v4.18.1

Compare Source

Bugs

Fixes a ReferenceError issue in lodash lodash-es lodash-amd and lodash.template when using the template and fromPairs functions from the modular builds. See #​6167 (comment)

These defects were related to how lodash distributions are built from the main branch using https://github.com/lodash-archive/lodash-cli. When internal dependencies change inside lodash functions, equivalent updates need to be made to a mapping in the lodash-cli. (hey, it was ahead of its time once upon a time!). We know this, but we missed it in the last release. It's the kind of thing that passes in CI, but fails bc the build is not the same thing you tested.

There is no diff on main for this, but you can see the diffs for each of the npm packages on their respective branches:

• lodash: lodash/lodash@4.18.0-npm...4.18.1-npm
• lodash-es: lodash/lodash@4.18.0-es...4.18.1-es
• lodash-amd: lodash/lodash@4.18.0-amd...4.18.1-amd
• lodash.templatelodash/lodash@4.18.0-npm-packages...4.18.1-npm-packages

v4.18.0

Compare Source

v4.18.0

Full Changelog: lodash/lodash@4.17.23...4.18.0

Security

_.unset / _.omit: Fixed prototype pollution via constructor/prototype path traversal (GHSA-f23m-r3pf-42rh, fe8d32e). Previously, array-wrapped path segments and primitive roots could bypass the existing guards, allowing deletion of properties from built-in prototypes. Now constructor and prototype are blocked unconditionally as non-terminal path keys, matching baseSet. Calls that previously returned true and deleted the property now return false and leave the target untouched.

_.template: Fixed code injection via imports keys (GHSA-r5fr-rjxr-66jc, CVE-2026-4800, 879aaa9). Fixes an incomplete patch for CVE-2021-23337. The variable option was validated against reForbiddenIdentifierChars but importsKeys was left unguarded, allowing code injection via the same Function() constructor sink. imports keys containing forbidden identifier characters now throw "Invalid imports option passed into _.template".

Docs

• Add security notice for _.template in threat model and API docs (#​6099)
• Document lower > upper behavior in _.random (#​6115)
• Fix quotes in _.compact jsdoc (#​6090)

lodash.* modular packages

Diff

We have also regenerated and published a select number of the lodash.* modular packages.

These modular packages had fallen out of sync significantly from the minor/patch updates to lodash. Specifically, we have brought the following packages up to parity w/ the latest lodash release because they have had CVEs on them in the past:

• lodash.orderby
• lodash.tonumber
• lodash.trim
• lodash.trimend
• lodash.sortedindexby
• lodash.zipobjectdeep
• lodash.unset
• lodash.omit
• lodash.template

---

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.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• 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	Apr 2, 2026 10:07am
hashdotdesign	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 2, 2026 10:07am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 2, 2026 10:07am

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	Apr 2, 2026 10:07am

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Wide-scoped runtime dependency upgrade used across backend and frontend; while primarily security/patch-level, it can still introduce subtle behavioral changes in lodash utilities.

Overview
Updates lodash/lodash-es across the monorepo to 4.18.1 (AI worker, API, frontend, and shared libs), with corresponding yarn.lock resolution changes to pull the patched builds.

Also bumps the design-system tooling dev dependency @figma/code-connect from 1.3.13 to 1.4.3.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2765f68. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates lodash-es from 4.17.23 to 4.18.1 in internal TypeScript workspaces.

Why: Pulls in upstream security fixes for .template code injection and .unset/_.omit prototype pollution.

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

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 1 suggestion posted.

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 (839d015) to head (ddab303).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8605      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.50%   62.50%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1318     1318              
  Lines      134216   134224       +8     
  Branches     5516     5518       +2     
==========================================
- Hits        83895    83893       -2     
- Misses      49406    49416      +10     
  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	96.18% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
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> (-0.01%)	⬇️
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 deps/js/npm-lodash-es-vulnerability (2765f68) with main (0c2347e)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (839d015) during the generation of this report, so 0c2347e was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[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.

[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	$$27.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 176 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.130 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.279 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$12.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 84.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.530 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 374 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$13.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 103 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.108 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$23.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 181 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.838 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$28.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 144 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.678 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.62 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.245 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 93.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.039 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.336 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.91 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.226 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.490 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.746 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.612 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.025 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.43 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.05 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.065 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.048 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.562 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.60 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.121 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.72 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.227 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.755 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.77 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.328 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.03 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.485 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.73 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.471 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.249 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.085 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.01 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.713 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.321 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.081 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.062 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.28 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$43.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 245 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.295 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$82.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 627 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$49.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.18 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$52.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 371 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$60.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 441 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.267 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$46.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 276 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$422 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.05 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.34 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$100 \mathrm{ms} \pm 453 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$89.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 405 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.036 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$287 \mathrm{ms} \pm 800 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.041 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$18.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 101 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.062 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 85.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.615 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$19.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 112 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.417 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 144 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.988 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$24.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 127 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$18.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.872 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 110 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 100 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.936 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.457 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 215 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.291 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$35.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 319 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$33.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 272 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.052 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$33.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 376 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 282 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.94 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$34.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 256 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}5.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$34.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 294 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.552 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$34.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.26 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$34.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 324 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$34.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.731 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$8.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 46.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.566 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$92.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 515 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.011 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$142 \mathrm{ms} \pm 584 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.288 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$98.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 543 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.609 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 554 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.041 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 624 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.548 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 524 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.836 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 587 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 579 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.803 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$108 \mathrm{ms} \pm 393 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.876 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$116 \mathrm{ms} \pm 603 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.823 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 630 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.904 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$118 \mathrm{ms} \pm 491 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.181 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$143 \mathrm{ms} \pm 485 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$152 \mathrm{ms} \pm 443 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.294 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$104 \mathrm{ms} \pm 540 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}106 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$580 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.15 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}5.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph