BE-500, BE-501: HashQL: Unify mixed parameter resolution in data dependency analysis by indietyp · Pull Request #8607 · hashintel/hash

indietyp · 2026-04-05T19:01:22Z

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

This PR consolidates the parameter resolution logic in the data dependency analysis by unifying the handling of graph edges and constant bindings. Previously, these two sources of parameter values were handled by separate functions, but now they are processed together in a single unified approach that can handle mixed scenarios where parameters come from both sources.

🔍 What does this change?

Removes the resolve_params_const function and merges its functionality into resolve_params
Updates resolve_params to handle both graph edges and constant bindings simultaneously using try_reduce for consensus checking
Adds support for the iterator_try_reduce and maybe_uninit_uninit_array_transpose library features
Removes the unused assert_matches feature from multiple library modules
Adds a new test case load_param_mixed that validates parameter resolution when predecessors provide a mix of constants and projections
Improves documentation to clarify that parameter resolution now handles both graph edges and constant bindings

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

🛡 What tests cover this?

New test case load_param_mixed validates the unified parameter resolution logic
Existing data dependency analysis tests continue to cover the refactored functionality

❓ How to test this?

Checkout the branch
Run the data dependency analysis tests
Confirm that the new load_param_mixed test passes and validates mixed parameter resolution

vercel · 2026-04-05T19:01:27Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hash	Ready	Preview, Comment	May 8, 2026 8:46am
petrinaut	Ready	Preview	May 8, 2026 8:46am

2 Skipped Deployments

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
hashdotdesign	Ignored	Preview	May 8, 2026 8:46am
hashdotdesign-tokens	Ignored	Preview	May 8, 2026 8:46am

indietyp · 2026-04-05T19:01:47Z

Warning

This pull request is not mergeable via GitHub because a downstack PR is open. Once all requirements are satisfied, merge this PR as a stack on Graphite.
Learn more

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

codspeed-hq · 2026-04-05T19:09:04Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 24 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 56 skipped benchmarks¹

_{Comparing bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution (2eb8898) with bm/be-494-hashql-scc-loop-breaker-inlining (3319cae)}

56 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

codecov · 2026-04-05T19:48:34Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.25000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.31%. Comparing base (3319cae) to head (2eb8898).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...l/mir/src/pass/analysis/data_dependency/resolve.rs	93.33%	1 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...hashql/mir/src/pass/transform/inst_simplify/mod.rs	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                              Coverage Diff                               @@
##           bm/be-494-hashql-scc-loop-breaker-inlining    #8607      +/-   ##
==============================================================================
+ Coverage                                       68.27%   68.31%   +0.04%     
==============================================================================
  Files                                             987      987              
  Lines                                           93731    93839     +108     
  Branches                                         4793     4790       -3     
==============================================================================
+ Hits                                            63996    64108     +112     
+ Misses                                          29073    29072       -1     
+ Partials                                          662      659       -3

Flag	Coverage Δ
apps.hash-ai-worker-ts	`1.41% <ø> (ø)`
apps.hash-api	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-backend-utils	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-graph-sdk	`9.63% <ø> (ø)`
local.hash-isomorphic-utils	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hash-graph-api	`2.52% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-compiletest	`28.26% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-eval	`79.71% <ø> (ø)`
rust.hashql-mir	`91.73% <96.25%> (+0.04%)`	⬆️

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.

github-actions · 2026-04-06T20:52:46Z

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	$$28.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 196 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.192 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}12.2 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1001	$$15.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 154 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}15.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 3314	$$46.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 372 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$15.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 1526	$$25.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 177 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.810 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 2078	$$29.3 \mathrm{ms} \pm 207 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.220 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.81 \mathrm{ms} \pm 22.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.105 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 1033	$$14.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 116 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.823 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_medium

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 102	$$4.13 \mathrm{ms} \pm 31.7 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.79 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.33 \mathrm{ms} \pm 27.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}13.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 51	$$3.85 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}16.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 269	$$5.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 63.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}15.5 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$4.04 \mathrm{ms} \pm 42.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 107	$$4.80 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.6 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 133	$$5.35 \mathrm{ms} \pm 69.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}19.6 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.82 \mathrm{ms} \pm 36.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 63	$$5.03 \mathrm{ms} \pm 61.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}21.8 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_none

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 2	$$2.95 \mathrm{ms} \pm 23.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.88 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.00 \mathrm{ms} \pm 30.1 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.40 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 1	$$3.16 \mathrm{ms} \pm 60.3 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 8	$$3.36 \mathrm{ms} \pm 37.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.92 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.30 \mathrm{ms} \pm 41.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 3	$$3.46 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.83 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

policy_resolution_small

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: high, policies: 52	$$3.49 \mathrm{ms} \pm 40.0 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}9.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.29 \mathrm{ms} \pm 32.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}8.97 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: empty, selectivity: medium, policies: 25	$$3.26 \mathrm{ms} \pm 28.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}5.65 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: high, policies: 94	$$4.31 \mathrm{ms} \pm 53.4 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}21.0 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.71 \mathrm{ms} \pm 43.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}13.3 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: seeded, selectivity: medium, policies: 26	$$3.93 \mathrm{ms} \pm 45.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}16.1 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: high, policies: 66	$$3.86 \mathrm{ms} \pm 40.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.85 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: low, policies: 1	$$3.21 \mathrm{ms} \pm 21.5 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.724 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
resolve_policies_for_actor	user: system, selectivity: medium, policies: 29	$$3.59 \mathrm{ms} \pm 25.9 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.10 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_complete

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id;one_depth	1 entities	$$50.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 458 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}7.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	10 entities	$$89.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 609 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.31 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	25 entities	$$56.7 \mathrm{ms} \pm 482 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}6.98 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	5 entities	$$55.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 369 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;one_depth	50 entities	$$65.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 459 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.502 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	1 entities	$$47.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 287 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-20.685 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	10 entities	$$446 \mathrm{ms} \pm 1.05 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}1.69 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	25 entities	$$107 \mathrm{ms} \pm 579 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}10.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	5 entities	$$93.4 \mathrm{ms} \pm 540 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.372 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;two_depth	50 entities	$$301 \mathrm{ms} \pm 913 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.74 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	1 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 145 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.775 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	10 entities	$$23.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 256 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.04 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	25 entities	$$20.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 117 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-11.598 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	5 entities	$$23.8 \mathrm{ms} \pm 235 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{red}11.7 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id;zero_depth	50 entities	$$25.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 165 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.690 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

read_scaling_linkless

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_id	1 entities	$$20.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 143 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.49 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10 entities	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 130 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.27 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	100 entities	$$20.2 \mathrm{ms} \pm 182 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	1000 entities	$$19.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 141 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.088 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	10000 entities	$$26.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 287 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.66 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	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`	$$35.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 327 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}3.08 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/book/v/1`	$$34.9 \mathrm{ms} \pm 277 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.470 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/building/v/1`	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 374 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-6.543 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/organization/v/1`	$$35.1 \mathrm{ms} \pm 305 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.797 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/page/v/2`	$$35.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 321 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.09 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/person/v/1`	$$36.0 \mathrm{ms} \pm 268 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.14 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/playlist/v/1`	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 316 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-7.698 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/song/v/1`	$$34.5 \mathrm{ms} \pm 295 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.348 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
entity_by_id	entity type ID: `https://blockprotocol.org/@alice/types/entity-type/uk-address/v/1`	$$35.6 \mathrm{ms} \pm 297 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-2.051 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_entity_type

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
get_entity_type_by_id	Account ID: `bf5a9ef5-dc3b-43cf-a291-6210c0321eba`	$$8.57 \mathrm{ms} \pm 50.2 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-15.874 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

representative_read_multiple_entities

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$100 \mathrm{ms} \pm 566 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.540 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$151 \mathrm{ms} \pm 563 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-12.281 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$110 \mathrm{ms} \pm 549 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-1.060 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$122 \mathrm{ms} \pm 564 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}1.62 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$128 \mathrm{ms} \pm 474 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}0.057 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
entity_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$133 \mathrm{ms} \pm 471 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.902 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=0	0	$$106 \mathrm{ms} \pm 455 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.481 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=255	1,resolve_depths=inherit:1;values:255;properties:255;links:127;link_dests:126;type:true	$$132 \mathrm{ms} \pm 599 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.340 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:0;link_dests:0;type:false	$$113 \mathrm{ms} \pm 484 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-4.684 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:0;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 940 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-3.671 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:0;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 575 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{lightgreen}-5.127 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$
link_by_source_by_property	traversal_paths=2	1,resolve_depths=inherit:0;values:2;properties:2;links:1;link_dests:0;type:true	$$121 \mathrm{ms} \pm 500 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}-0.686 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$

scenarios

Function	Value	Mean	Flame graphs
full_test	query-limited	$$140 \mathrm{ms} \pm 747 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
full_test	query-unlimited	$$149 \mathrm{ms} \pm 603 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}2.32 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-limited	$$109 \mathrm{ms} \pm 619 \mathrm{μs}\left({\color{gray}4.28 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph
linked_queries	query-unlimited	$$601 \mathrm{ms} \pm 3.22 \mathrm{ms}\left({\color{gray}3.75 \mathrm{\%}}\right) $$	Flame Graph

cursor · 2026-04-29T15:42:50Z

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Touches core data-dependency resolution logic (φ-node/loop Param handling), so regressions could affect subsequent MIR optimizations; changes are well-covered by added cycle/projection/mixed-predecessor tests.

Overview
Unifies block-parameter (Param) resolution in data-dependency analysis by merging graph-edge and constant-binding predecessors into a single consensus check, including projection-aware comparison (resolve each predecessor through the full projection suffix) and improved cycle handling (skip cyclic predecessors; propagate Backtrack correctly).

Adds several targeted regression tests and snapshots covering mixed constant/place predecessors, projected-field consensus, and loop cycles with constant init edges/visited-set cleanup. Also extends InstSimplify to fold non-boolean 0 & x/x & 0 to 0, and enables the nightly iterator_try_reduce feature used by the new consensus logic.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7f4b3d6. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

augmentcode

Review completed. No suggestions at this time.

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

cursor

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

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

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit bc9820a. Configure here.}

fix: behaviour

0a89037

vercel Bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 5, 2026 19:01 Inactive

github-actions Bot added area/libs Relates to first-party libraries/crates/packages (area) type/eng > backend Owned by the @backend team area/tests New or updated tests labels Apr 5, 2026

This was referenced Apr 5, 2026

BE-482: HashQL: Remove logical not from MIR and fix postgres boolean lowering #8595

Open

BE-494: HashQL: Loop-breaker selection for recursive inlining #8600

Open

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 5, 2026 19:14 View deployment

feat: allow for recursive loops

99b8416

vercel Bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 5, 2026 19:43 Inactive

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 5, 2026 19:51 View deployment

chore: follow projections on param edges

7f4b3d6

vercel Bot temporarily deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 6, 2026 19:28 Inactive

indietyp changed the title ~~BE-500: HashQL: Unify mixed parameter resolution in data dependency analysis~~ BE-500, BE-501: HashQL: Unify mixed parameter resolution in data dependency analysis Apr 6, 2026

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 6, 2026 19:35 View deployment

vilkinsons assigned indietyp Apr 7, 2026

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution branch from 57a6dd4 to 7b45e45 Compare April 29, 2026 15:09

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-494-hashql-scc-loop-breaker-inlining branch from 3481dcb to 95ef685 Compare April 29, 2026 15:09

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 29, 2026 15:12 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 29, 2026 15:18 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-494-hashql-scc-loop-breaker-inlining branch from 95ef685 to 933ed9e Compare April 29, 2026 15:23

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution branch from 7b45e45 to 04b51c5 Compare April 29, 2026 15:23

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 29, 2026 15:26 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution branch from 04b51c5 to fb80624 Compare April 29, 2026 15:32

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 29, 2026 15:35 View deployment

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution branch from fb80624 to d2ad307 Compare April 29, 2026 15:40

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-494-hashql-scc-loop-breaker-inlining branch from 1bebdcc to 1cba715 Compare April 29, 2026 15:40

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution branch from d2ad307 to 93fba40 Compare April 29, 2026 15:42

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-494-hashql-scc-loop-breaker-inlining branch from 1cba715 to 1da0f0a Compare April 29, 2026 15:42

indietyp marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2026 15:42

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 29, 2026 15:45 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 29, 2026 15:48 View deployment

graphite-app Bot requested review from a team April 29, 2026 15:48

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution branch from 93fba40 to ffe8840 Compare April 29, 2026 15:51

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-494-hashql-scc-loop-breaker-inlining branch from 1da0f0a to 979bf1e Compare April 29, 2026 15:51

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – petrinaut April 29, 2026 15:54 View deployment

vercel Bot deployed to Preview – hash April 29, 2026 15:58 View deployment

augmentcode Bot reviewed Apr 29, 2026

View reviewed changes

indietyp force-pushed the bm/be-500-hashql-forward-substitution-unified-param-resolution branch from ffe8840 to f3d71ce Compare April 30, 2026 08:53

cursor Bot reviewed Apr 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread libs/@local/hashql/mir/src/pass/analysis/data_dependency/resolve.rs

Conversation

indietyp commented Apr 5, 2026

🌟 What is the purpose of this PR?

🔍 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?

🛡 What tests cover this?

❓ How to test this?

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Apr 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

indietyp commented Apr 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Apr 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Footnotes

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Apr 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Apr 6, 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!

cursor Bot commented Apr 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Summary

Uh oh!

augmentcode Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cursor Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

vercel Bot commented Apr 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

indietyp commented Apr 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq Bot commented Apr 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Apr 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

cursor Bot commented Apr 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading