FE-1569: Add the Brunch container build and publication path

[lunelson]

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

Add the independently reviewable Brunch container boundary requested in review: a reproducible non-root production image, cheap process liveness, and CI publication to ECR and GHCR. The catalog deliberately has no ECS targets until infrastructure is provisioned.

🔗 Related links

• FE-1569: Containerize and safely deploy Brunch on HASH infrastructure (internal)
• Followed by the runtime persistence and telemetry PR

🔍 What does this change?

• Adds the repository-root Docker build using the locked toolchain, Turbo pruning, immutable Yarn install, and uid/gid 60000 runtime.
• Adds a cheap, dependency-free /health liveness endpoint and container health check.
• Registers @apps/brunch-agent in the deploy catalog for multi-architecture ECR and GHCR publication with an empty ECS target list.
• Narrows the Docker context while retaining required production Markdown inputs.

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:

• affected the execution graph, and the root build:docker task already covers it

⚠️ Known issues

• This publishes to ECR and GHCR. ECS remains disabled until infrastructure supplies a service target.

🐾 Next steps

• The upstack PR adds Postgres persistence, RDS IAM support, operational telemetry, and deployment diagnostics.
• Infrastructure will extend the catalog entry with ECR/ECS details when available.

🛡 What tests cover this?

• yarn workspace @apps/brunch-agent lint:tsc
• yarn workspace @apps/brunch-agent build
• yarn workspace @apps/brunch-agent test:unit — 16 files and 60 tests
• Deploy workflow YAML parsing
• CI exercises the Docker build and publication matrix; Docker was unavailable during the post-split local verification pass.

❓ How to test this?

1. Run yarn workspace @apps/brunch-agent build:docker with Docker available.
2. Start the image and confirm GET /health returns 200 with application/health+json.
3. Confirm the deploy matrix includes brunch-agent for both architecture builds and ECR/GHCR manifest publication, with no ECS deployment row.

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated
hash	Ready	Preview	Sep 4, 2026 12:45pm UTC
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ready	Preview	Sep 4, 2026 12:45pm UTC
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	Sep 4, 2026 12:45pm UTC
petrinaut-docs	Ready	Preview	Sep 4, 2026 12:45pm UTC

[lunelson]

• FE-1569: Add durable Brunch storage and telemetry #9487
• FE-1569: Add the Brunch container build and publication path #9495 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 98 untouched benchmarks

---

_{Comparing ln/fe-1569-brunch-agent-container (9144fc8) with main (4854d5f)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (9371f71) during the generation of this report, so 4854d5f was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.89%. Comparing base (eea4e1f) to head (9144fc8).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9495      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.89%   60.89%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1461     1461              
  Lines      146725   146725              
  Branches     6744     6744              
==========================================
- Hits        89343    89342       -1     
- Misses      56264    56265       +1     
  Partials     1118     1118              

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	1.99% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-api	15.41% <ø> (ø)
apps.hash-graph	13.32% <ø> (ø)
blockprotocol.type-system	38.15% <ø> (ø)
local.claude-hooks	0.00% <ø> (ø)
local.harpc-client	51.49% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-backend-utils	3.27% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-graph-sdk	10.02% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	12.22% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	2.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.81% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.19% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
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-config	74.74% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-api	19.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authentication	96.02% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	63.14% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-embeddings	91.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	32.15% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	48.41% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-temporal-versioning	50.18% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-types	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-validation	84.71% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-middleware	90.92% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-ast	89.63% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	28.39% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	78.95% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.51% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	79.82% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.09% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	87.92% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-syntax-jexpr	94.04% <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.

[cursor]

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

There are 2 total unresolved issues (including 1 from previous review).

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

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 72e2d83. Configure here.}

[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	$$28.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 215 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1002	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 154 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.45 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$45.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 405 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.138 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 147 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.865 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1527	$$26.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 275 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.703 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$30.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 254 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.50 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 139 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.802 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.136 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.09 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.441 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 52	$$3.52 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.100 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.41 \mathrm{ms} \pm 44.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.500 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.70 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.57 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 108	$$4.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.504 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.66 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.096 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 26.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.623 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$4.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 38.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.728 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.583 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.364 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 2	$$2.96 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.702 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.198 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.414 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.23 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.619 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.19 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.88 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.180 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.02 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.071 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.56 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.469 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.10 \mathrm{ms} \pm 20.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.493 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 27	$$3.40 \mathrm{ms} \pm 29.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.682 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.48 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.493 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.11 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.455 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.54 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.59 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$32.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 201 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.429 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$71.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 450 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.541 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$37.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 288 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.777 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$40.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 320 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.116 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$45.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 248 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.863 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$34.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 208 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.644 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$427 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.49 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-0.208 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$92.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 591 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.228 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$80.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 463 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.996 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$281 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.18 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.731 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$10.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 78.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.085 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$11.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.780 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$10.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.993 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$10.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 56.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.831 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.032 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.857 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$10.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 67.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.888 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.122 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 74.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.311 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 87.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.716 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-8.814 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.653 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 71.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.641 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$11.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 83.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.561 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 81.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.249 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$10.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 72.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.886 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$11.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.464 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 75.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.178 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$10.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 58.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.072 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$7.97 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.009 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$55.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 401 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.122 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 689 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.238 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$60.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 433 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.895 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$70.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 546 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.611 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$78.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 483 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-10.586 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$85.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 513 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-9.843 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$47.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 261 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.653 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$74.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 544 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.944 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$53.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 421 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.895 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$60.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 471 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.107 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 388 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.775 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$63.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 469 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.682 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$129 \mathrm{ms} \pm 799 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.39 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$140 \mathrm{ms} \pm 904 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$19.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 144 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-20.627 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$536 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.17 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-1.351 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

[TimDiekmann]

We need to use another port, the frontend is already using 3000

[TimDiekmann]

We agreed on port 3002 in slack.