Update Rust crate smol_str to v0.3.5

[hash-worker]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Type	Update	Change
smol_str (source)	workspace.dependencies	patch	0.3.4 -> 0.3.5

---

Warning

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

---

Release Notes

rust-lang/rust-analyzer (smol_str)

v0.3.5

• Optimise SmolStr::clone 4-5x speedup inline, 0.5x heap (slow down).

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "before 4am every weekday,every weekend" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 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.

[cursor]

PR Summary

Routine dependency patch update.

• Bumps smol_str from 0.3.4 to 0.3.5 in Cargo.lock (checksum updated); no code changes

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit cbab2ee. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: Updates the Rust crate smol_str from 0.3.4 to 0.3.5 (Renovate dependency bump).
Changes: Refreshes the lockfile to pull in the upstream release, which includes a significant SmolStr::clone performance optimization.

_{🤖 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 59.02%. Comparing base (0e233cf) to head (cbab2ee).
⚠️ Report is 44 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8270      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   59.02%   59.02%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1187     1187              
  Lines      112486   112486              
  Branches     4939     4939              
==========================================
- Hits        66394    66393       -1     
- Misses      45334    45335       +1     
  Partials      758      758              

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	10.88% <ø> (ø)
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.antsi	0.00% <ø> (ø)
rust.error-stack	90.88% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-codec	84.70% <ø> (ø)
rust.harpc-net	96.14% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
rust.harpc-tower	66.80% <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	2.89% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-authorization	62.47% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-postgres-store	25.61% <ø> (ø)
rust.hash-graph-store	30.54% <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	87.25% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-compiletest	46.65% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-core	82.36% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-diagnostics	72.43% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-eval	68.54% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-hir	89.10% <ø> (ø)
rust.hashql-mir	88.18% <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]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging this PR will not alter performance

_{Comparing deps/rs/rust-analyzer-monorepo (cbab2ee) with main (75dfdf3)}

Summary

✅ 17 untouched benchmarks
🗄️ 12 archived benchmarks run¹

Footnotes

1. 12 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩

[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	$$26.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 124 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.713 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$13.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.71 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$43.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 291 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$14.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 111 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$24.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 139 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.36 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$27.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 207 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-36.031 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-81.845 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$11.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-60.877 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$3.58 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.665 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.12 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.145 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$4.90 \mathrm{ms} \pm 24.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.301 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 14.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.293 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$3.89 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.646 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$4.17 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.685 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.22 \mathrm{ms} \pm 18.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.851 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$3.79 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.349 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.55 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.47 \mathrm{ms} \pm 8.03 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$2.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 13.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$2.75 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.65 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.52 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.65 \mathrm{ms} \pm 10.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.46 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$2.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$2.92 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.61 \mathrm{ms} \pm 9.93 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$2.78 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$3.24 \mathrm{ms} \pm 15.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.54 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.84 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.67 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.08 \mathrm{ms} \pm 19.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.15 \mathrm{ms} \pm 16.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.42 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$2.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 11.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.41 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.05 \mathrm{ms} \pm 12.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.70 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$39.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 206 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.53 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$76.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 415 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.22 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$43.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 194 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.56 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$46.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 263 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.23 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$53.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 323 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$40.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 179 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.07 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$417 \mathrm{ms} \pm 961 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.58 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$94.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 433 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.356 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$85.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 517 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.64 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$307 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.13 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{red}10.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$14.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 76.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.230 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.77 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$14.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$14.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 73.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$18.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 116 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.89 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$14.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 65.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.134 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$14.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 95.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$14.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.06 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$15.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 68.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.17 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$22.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 130 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.439 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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	$$28.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 302 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.404 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1	$$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 283 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.218 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 307 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.118 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1	$$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 269 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.602 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2	$$28.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 330 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.619 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1	$$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 263 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.816 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1	$$29.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 256 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.736 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1	$$29.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 285 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.505 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1	$$29.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 287 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.043 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba	$$7.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 34.8 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.893 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$45.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 225 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.653 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$94.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 385 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.91 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$51.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 256 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.865 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$59.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.998 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 336 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.414 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$74.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 345 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.76 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$51.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 289 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.90 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$78.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 354 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.72 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$58.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 386 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.80 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$65.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 321 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.21 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$67.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 313 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.00 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$68.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 380 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.13 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$136 \mathrm{ms} \pm 418 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.78 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$136 \mathrm{ms} \pm 499 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.25 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$39.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 142 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-38.839 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$572 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.14 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}-2.807 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph