SRE-747: Tag ECR :staging on the image, not a single-entry index by TimDiekmann · Pull Request #8823 · hashintel/hash

TimDiekmann · 2026-06-03T17:57:42Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Since #8801 (SRE-739), the ECR :staging tag has been applied to an image index instead of the image itself (SRE-747) — blocking promotion to production and breaking Inspector findings.

Root cause: the tag-if-newer action advanced the mutable tag with docker buildx imagetools create, whose only job is to assemble a manifest list — it wraps even a single source in an index. On ECR (single-arch, arm64) that produced a single-entry image index whose digest no longer matched the :sha/:run image. Same problem class as SRE-613, different cause (there it was BuildKit provenance; here it's the retag tool).

Fix: advance the ECR tag with aws ecr put-image — re-PUT the exact source manifest bytes under the mutable tag (same digest, flat image, no index). GHCR keeps imagetools create, where a multi-arch manifest list is the correct, intended shape.

🔗 Related links

SRE-747 (internal)
SRE-613 — same image-index problem class (internal)

🚫 Blocked by

none

🔍 What does this change?

tag-if-newer now branches the advance step by registry:
- ECR (*.dkr.ecr.*.amazonaws.com/*): aws ecr batch-get-image fetches the :sha-<sha> manifest, aws ecr put-image re-PUTs it under the mutable tag → identical digest, flat image. A retry after a partial success hits ImageAlreadyExistsException, which is the intended end state and is treated as success.
- GHCR: unchanged (imagetools create).
The current-revision read (resolve step) and the out-of-order guard (git merge-base --is-ancestor) are untouched and stay shared.
Action doc block updated to describe the registry-aware advance.

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

⚠️ Known issues

The is_main path is not exercised by CI before merge — the stage job (which runs tag-if-newer for ECR :staging) only runs on main pushes, so this fix is first exercised on the first main run after merge. Two assumptions that run must confirm:
- aws ecr put-image accepts the batch-get-image manifest without an explicit --image-manifest-media-type (aws-cli v2 infers it from the OCI manifest's mediaType).
- The resolve step's imagetools inspect still reads org.opencontainers.image.revision from the now-flat ECR image (via .image.config.Labels), not only from an index.
The existing buggy :staging index self-heals on the first post-merge main run (put-image overwrites it with the flat image).

🐾 Next steps

SRE-759: consider crane tag to collapse the ECR/GHCR branch into one registry-agnostic line (tradeoff: new dependency, buildx stays for the resolve step). Marked with a TODO(SRE-759) at the branch.

🛡 What tests cover this?

No automated tests (CI workflow / composite-action config). Validated locally: YAML parses, branch/repo-strip logic verified (469…amazonaws.com/hashintel/hash/graph → hashintel/hash/graph; ghcr.io/... → imagetools branch). The ECR mutation itself is only exercisable on the first post-merge main run (see Known issues).

❓ How to test this?

On merge, watch the first main run's stage job: :staging on ECR should resolve to the same digest as the run's :sha-<sha> / :run-<run_id> tags (no separate index digest).
aws ecr describe-images --repository-name hashintel/hash/<service> --image-ids imageTag=staging → imageManifestMediaType should be an image manifest, not ...image.index.v1+json.

📹 Demo

n/a — CI / infra change.

`tag-if-newer` advanced the mutable tag with `docker buildx imagetools create`, which always synthesizes a manifest list — even from a single source. On ECR (single-arch) that wrapped :staging in a single-entry image index, so its digest no longer matched the :sha/:run image: promotion couldn't walk :staging back to a run- tag, and Inspector findings sat on the index instead of the scanned child. Advance the ECR tag with `aws ecr put-image` instead (re-PUT the source manifest bytes under the mutable tag): same digest, flat image, no index. GHCR stays on imagetools create — a multi-arch manifest list is correct there. crane could unify both later (SRE-759).

vercel · 2026-06-03T17:57:49Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 3, 2026 6:10pm
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 3, 2026 6:10pm
petrinaut	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 3, 2026 6:10pm

cursor · 2026-06-03T17:57:51Z

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes production ECR :staging tagging on main deploys; wrong manifest handling could break promotion/scanning, though the out-of-order guard and idempotent retry handling limit blast radius.

Overview
Fixes SRE-747 by changing how the tag-if-newer composite action moves mutable tags on ECR: instead of always using docker buildx imagetools create (which wraps even a single image in a manifest index and broke :staging digest alignment with Inspector/promotion), ECR repos now copy the source tag’s manifest bytes with aws ecr batch-get-image + aws ecr put-image, keeping a flat image and the same digest. GHCR still uses imagetools create, where a multi-arch index is intended.

The advance step passes IMAGE / tag env vars into the retry wrapper and treats ECR ImageAlreadyExistsException on retry as success. Action docs now describe this registry-aware advance and ECR’s AWS auth requirement.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit b5ee710. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adjusts the tag-if-newer composite action so that advancing a mutable tag preserves the correct manifest shape per registry—preventing ECR :staging from becoming a single-entry image index (which breaks digest-based promotion and Inspector findings).

Changes:

Makes the “advance mutable tag” step registry-aware: uses aws ecr batch-get-image + aws ecr put-image for ECR to re-PUT the exact manifest bytes (flat image, identical digest).
Keeps GHCR behavior unchanged by continuing to use docker buildx imagetools create to produce/advance multi-arch manifest lists.
Updates the action’s inline documentation to explain the registry-specific behavior and requirements (AWS credentials/region for ECR).

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

codecov · 2026-06-03T18:01:50Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 59.08%. Comparing base (d9d2c1f) to head (b5ee710).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8823   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   59.08%   59.08%           
=======================================
  Files        1343     1343           
  Lines      129731   129731           
  Branches     5866     5866           
=======================================
+ Hits        76651    76654    +3     
+ Misses      52177    52174    -3     
  Partials      903      903

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`1.41% <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-backend-utils	`2.81% <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	`96.22% <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	`26.74% <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	`28.26% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-core	`79.28% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-diagnostics	`72.53% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-eval	`75.69% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-hir	`89.06% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-mir	`86.94% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	`94.06% <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 · 2026-06-03T18:03:20Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 80 untouched benchmarks

_{Comparing t/sre-747-ecr-tags-are-applied-to-image-index-only (b5ee710) with main (d2871c8)}

github-actions · 2026-06-03T19:13:17Z

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	$$27.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 228 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.345 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.383 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 96.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$44.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 391 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 150 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 174 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 173 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.311 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.68 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.391 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$13.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 98.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.392 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.539 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.220 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.38 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.615 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.18 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.346 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.530 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.14 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.604 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.45 \mathrm{ms} \pm 35.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.832 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.054 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.598 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.253 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.619 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.024 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.475 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.538 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.24 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.99 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.624 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.600 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.94 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.923 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.42 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.749 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 17.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.445 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.25 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.734 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.32 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.949 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.059 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.344 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$55.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 376 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.394 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$46.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 239 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.091 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$50.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.271 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$44.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 229 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.716 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$62.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 402 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.986 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$62.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 412 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.01 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$55.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 299 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.569 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$101 \mathrm{ms} \pm 698 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.448 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$46.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 274 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.087 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$292 \mathrm{ms} \pm 862 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.814 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$19.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 164 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.109 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 152 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.329 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 114 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.375 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 140 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.522 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 159 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.329 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 121 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.405 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 132 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.328 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$19.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 146 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.853 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 151 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.654 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 199 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.011 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 350 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$34.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 350 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.141 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$35.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 370 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 313 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$35.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.589 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$34.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 310 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.694 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$35.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 357 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.55 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$35.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 319 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.16 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.63 \mathrm{ms} \pm 52.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.193 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$93.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 660 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.798 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$151 \mathrm{ms} \pm 637 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.480 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$102 \mathrm{ms} \pm 624 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.106 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$114 \mathrm{ms} \pm 589 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.997 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 744 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$130 \mathrm{ms} \pm 618 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$105 \mathrm{ms} \pm 636 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$134 \mathrm{ms} \pm 622 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.355 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$112 \mathrm{ms} \pm 531 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.960 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$120 \mathrm{ms} \pm 661 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.352 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$123 \mathrm{ms} \pm 728 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.578 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 561 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.118 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$180 \mathrm{ms} \pm 914 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.351 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$144 \mathrm{ms} \pm 656 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-27.014 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$40.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 217 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-61.009 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$549 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.22 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.951 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings June 3, 2026 17:57

graphite-app Bot assigned TimDiekmann Jun 3, 2026

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of TimDiekmann June 3, 2026 17:57 View session

github-actions Bot added the area/infra Relates to version control, CI, CD or IaC (area) label Jun 3, 2026

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hashdotdesign-tokens June 3, 2026 17:59 View deployment

Copilot AI reviewed Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

TimDiekmann requested a review from a team June 3, 2026 18:01

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut June 3, 2026 18:02 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash June 3, 2026 18:10 View deployment

CiaranMn approved these changes Jun 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

TimDiekmann added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 3, 2026

Merged via the queue into main with commit 1802edd Jun 3, 2026
181 checks passed

TimDiekmann deleted the t/sre-747-ecr-tags-are-applied-to-image-index-only branch June 3, 2026 20:40

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

SRE-747: Tag ECR :staging on the image, not a single-entry index#8823

SRE-747: Tag ECR :staging on the image, not a single-entry index#8823
TimDiekmann merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
t/sre-747-ecr-tags-are-applied-to-image-index-only

TimDiekmann commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

@rust/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!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

TimDiekmann commented Jun 3, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔗 Related links

🚫 Blocked by

🔍 What does this change?

Pre-Merge Checklist 🚀

🚢 Has this modified a publishable library?

📜 Does this require a change to the docs?

🕸️ Does this require a change to the Turbo Graph?

⚠️ Known issues

🐾 Next steps

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

📹 Demo

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cursor Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jun 3, 2026

Benchmark results

@rust/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!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

vercel Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading