Skip to content

ci: pass stale-banner via path: to sticky-pull-request-comment in tests + benchmarks workflows#1887

Merged
TooTallNate merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
pr-comment-stale-banner-via-path
May 4, 2026
Merged

ci: pass stale-banner via path: to sticky-pull-request-comment in tests + benchmarks workflows#1887
TooTallNate merged 4 commits into
mainfrom
pr-comment-stale-banner-via-path

Conversation

@TooTallNate
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@TooTallNate TooTallNate commented May 1, 2026

Summary

The Update existing test comment with stale warning / Update existing benchmark comment with stale warning steps in our two PR-commenting workflows inlined the previous comment body via ${{ steps.get-comment.outputs.previous-results }} into marocchino/sticky-pull-request-comment's message: input. As the e2e test matrix and benchmark tables grow, the resulting argv can exceed ARG_MAX and the action fails with Argument list too long.

This was first observed on a feature branch where the matrix had doubled, but the underlying fragility exists at any matrix size as the comment body grows over time.

Fix

Write the rendered stale-banner message to $RUNNER_TEMP/stale-comment.md inside the actions/github-script step and pass the path to sticky-pull-request-comment via its path: input. The action accepts file input identically to inline messages, but with no argv-size limit. Robust to any future matrix size.

Two files, two commits (same refactor applied to each):

  • .github/workflows/tests.yml
  • .github/workflows/benchmarks.yml

The final results-update step in benchmarks.yml already used path: benchmark-summary.md; only the stale-banner step was inlined.

Empty changeset since this is a CI-only change (no published packages affected).

Extracted from PR #1300.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings May 1, 2026 09:10
@vercel
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

vercel Bot commented May 1, 2026

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

Project Deployment Actions Updated (UTC)
example-nextjs-workflow-turbopack Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
example-nextjs-workflow-webpack Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
example-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-astro-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-express-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-fastify-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-hono-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-nitro-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-nuxt-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-sveltekit-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workbench-vite-workflow Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workflow-docs Ready Ready Preview, Comment, Open in v0 May 4, 2026 0:28am
workflow-swc-playground Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workflow-tarballs Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am
workflow-web Ready Ready Preview, Comment May 4, 2026 0:28am

@changeset-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

changeset-bot Bot commented May 1, 2026

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 9e1921c

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 0 packages

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 1, 2026

🧪 E2E Test Results

All tests passed

Summary

Passed Failed Skipped Total
✅ ▲ Vercel Production 1011 0 67 1078
✅ 💻 Local Development 1090 0 86 1176
✅ 📦 Local Production 1090 0 86 1176
✅ 🐘 Local Postgres 1090 0 86 1176
✅ 🪟 Windows 98 0 0 98
✅ 📋 Other 276 0 18 294
Total 4655 0 343 4998

Details by Category

✅ ▲ Vercel Production
App Passed Failed Skipped
✅ astro 91 0 7
✅ example 91 0 7
✅ express 91 0 7
✅ fastify 91 0 7
✅ hono 91 0 7
✅ nextjs-turbopack 96 0 2
✅ nextjs-webpack 96 0 2
✅ nitro 91 0 7
✅ nuxt 91 0 7
✅ sveltekit 91 0 7
✅ vite 91 0 7
✅ 💻 Local Development
App Passed Failed Skipped
✅ astro-stable 92 0 6
✅ express-stable 92 0 6
✅ fastify-stable 92 0 6
✅ hono-stable 92 0 6
✅ nextjs-turbopack-canary 79 0 19
✅ nextjs-turbopack-stable 98 0 0
✅ nextjs-webpack-canary 79 0 19
✅ nextjs-webpack-stable 98 0 0
✅ nitro-stable 92 0 6
✅ nuxt-stable 92 0 6
✅ sveltekit-stable 92 0 6
✅ vite-stable 92 0 6
✅ 📦 Local Production
App Passed Failed Skipped
✅ astro-stable 92 0 6
✅ express-stable 92 0 6
✅ fastify-stable 92 0 6
✅ hono-stable 92 0 6
✅ nextjs-turbopack-canary 79 0 19
✅ nextjs-turbopack-stable 98 0 0
✅ nextjs-webpack-canary 79 0 19
✅ nextjs-webpack-stable 98 0 0
✅ nitro-stable 92 0 6
✅ nuxt-stable 92 0 6
✅ sveltekit-stable 92 0 6
✅ vite-stable 92 0 6
✅ 🐘 Local Postgres
App Passed Failed Skipped
✅ astro-stable 92 0 6
✅ express-stable 92 0 6
✅ fastify-stable 92 0 6
✅ hono-stable 92 0 6
✅ nextjs-turbopack-canary 79 0 19
✅ nextjs-turbopack-stable 98 0 0
✅ nextjs-webpack-canary 79 0 19
✅ nextjs-webpack-stable 98 0 0
✅ nitro-stable 92 0 6
✅ nuxt-stable 92 0 6
✅ sveltekit-stable 92 0 6
✅ vite-stable 92 0 6
✅ 🪟 Windows
App Passed Failed Skipped
✅ nextjs-turbopack 98 0 0
✅ 📋 Other
App Passed Failed Skipped
✅ e2e-local-dev-nest-stable 92 0 6
✅ e2e-local-postgres-nest-stable 92 0 6
✅ e2e-local-prod-nest-stable 92 0 6

📋 View full workflow run

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented May 1, 2026

📊 Benchmark Results

📈 Comparing against baseline from main branch. Green 🟢 = faster, Red 🔺 = slower.

workflow with no steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
💻 Local 🥇 Express 0.037s (-15.6% 🟢) 1.004s (~) 0.967s 10 1.00x
💻 Local Nitro 0.045s (+3.9%) 1.006s (~) 0.961s 10 1.20x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 0.047s 1.005s 0.958s 10 1.27x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 0.050s 1.011s 0.962s 10 1.32x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 0.060s (-37.2% 🟢) 1.011s (-3.1%) 0.951s 10 1.60x
🐘 Postgres Express 0.060s (+4.3%) 1.011s (~) 0.950s 10 1.62x
workflow with 1 step

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
💻 Local 🥇 Express 1.094s (-2.8%) 2.005s (~) 0.912s 10 1.00x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 1.112s 2.006s 0.894s 10 1.02x
💻 Local Nitro 1.128s (~) 2.006s (~) 0.878s 10 1.03x
🐘 Postgres Express 1.149s (~) 2.011s (~) 0.862s 10 1.05x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 1.163s (+2.0%) 2.017s (~) 0.854s 10 1.06x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 1.206s 2.013s 0.807s 10 1.10x
workflow with 10 sequential steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
💻 Local 🥇 Express 10.631s (-2.7%) 11.022s (~) 0.391s 3 1.00x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 10.839s 11.024s 0.185s 3 1.02x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 10.923s (~) 11.023s (~) 0.100s 3 1.03x
🐘 Postgres Express 10.949s (~) 11.356s (+3.0%) 0.407s 3 1.03x
💻 Local Nitro 10.950s (~) 11.024s (~) 0.073s 3 1.03x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 11.085s 12.019s 0.934s 3 1.04x
workflow with 25 sequential steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
💻 Local 🥇 Express 14.233s (-4.9%) 15.028s (~) 0.794s 4 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Express 14.547s (~) 15.024s (~) 0.477s 4 1.02x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 14.665s (~) 15.024s (~) 0.359s 4 1.03x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 14.685s 15.029s 0.344s 4 1.03x
💻 Local Nitro 15.034s (~) 15.530s (-3.1%) 0.496s 4 1.06x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 15.239s 15.775s 0.535s 4 1.07x
workflow with 50 sequential steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Nitro 14.066s (+0.7%) 14.880s (+4.0%) 0.814s 7 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Express 14.248s (+1.7%) 15.027s (+3.0%) 0.780s 6 1.01x
💻 Local Express 14.794s (-10.9% 🟢) 15.027s (-11.8% 🟢) 0.232s 6 1.05x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 16.061s 16.697s 0.636s 6 1.14x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 16.440s 17.190s 0.750s 6 1.17x
💻 Local Nitro 16.780s (~) 17.031s (~) 0.251s 6 1.19x
Promise.all with 10 concurrent steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Next.js (Turbopack) 1.254s 2.010s 0.756s 15 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 1.269s (~) 2.011s (~) 0.742s 15 1.01x
🐘 Postgres Express 1.283s (+1.8%) 2.010s (~) 0.727s 15 1.02x
💻 Local Express 1.451s (-2.5%) 2.005s (~) 0.554s 15 1.16x
💻 Local Nitro 1.514s (-7.2% 🟢) 2.006s (-3.3%) 0.493s 15 1.21x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 1.573s 2.073s 0.500s 15 1.25x
Promise.all with 25 concurrent steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 2.327s (-1.4%) 3.010s (~) 0.682s 10 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 2.345s (~) 3.009s (~) 0.665s 10 1.01x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 2.579s 3.080s 0.501s 10 1.11x
💻 Local Express 2.655s (-10.1% 🟢) 3.007s (-12.9% 🟢) 0.352s 10 1.14x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 2.841s 3.453s 0.612s 9 1.22x
💻 Local Nitro 2.964s (-5.7% 🟢) 3.566s (-8.2% 🟢) 0.602s 9 1.27x
Promise.all with 50 concurrent steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 3.471s (~) 4.011s (~) 0.540s 8 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 3.500s (+0.6%) 4.012s (~) 0.512s 8 1.01x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 4.176s 4.725s 0.548s 7 1.20x
💻 Local Express 6.864s (-17.7% 🟢) 7.214s (-20.1% 🟢) 0.350s 5 1.98x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 8.181s 8.771s 0.590s 4 2.36x
💻 Local Nitro 8.259s (-1.1%) 9.020s (~) 0.761s 4 2.38x
Promise.race with 10 concurrent steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 1.264s (+0.6%) 2.008s (~) 0.744s 15 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 1.266s (+0.7%) 2.009s (~) 0.743s 15 1.00x
💻 Local Express 1.443s (-23.8% 🟢) 2.005s (-15.2% 🟢) 0.562s 15 1.14x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 1.500s 2.180s 0.680s 14 1.19x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 1.534s 2.007s 0.473s 15 1.21x
💻 Local Nitro 1.543s (-17.3% 🟢) 2.006s (-14.3% 🟢) 0.462s 15 1.22x
Promise.race with 25 concurrent steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 2.346s (~) 3.010s (~) 0.664s 10 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 2.351s (~) 3.010s (~) 0.660s 10 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 2.413s 3.025s 0.611s 10 1.03x
💻 Local Express 2.666s (-14.9% 🟢) 3.007s (-20.1% 🟢) 0.341s 10 1.14x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 2.967s 3.564s 0.597s 9 1.26x
💻 Local Nitro 3.077s (~) 3.884s (~) 0.807s 8 1.31x
Promise.race with 50 concurrent steps

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 3.463s (-1.0%) 4.011s (~) 0.548s 8 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 3.497s (~) 4.012s (~) 0.514s 8 1.01x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 3.834s 4.326s 0.491s 7 1.11x
💻 Local Express 7.506s (-14.7% 🟢) 8.017s (-13.5% 🟢) 0.511s 4 2.17x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 8.229s 8.518s 0.289s 4 2.38x
💻 Local Nitro 8.864s (-3.1%) 9.030s (-9.9% 🟢) 0.166s 4 2.56x
workflow with 10 sequential data payload steps (10KB)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
💻 Local 🥇 Express 0.690s (-29.9% 🟢) 1.004s (-6.7% 🟢) 0.314s 60 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Express 0.832s (-0.9%) 1.023s (~) 0.192s 59 1.21x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 0.835s (+1.8%) 1.023s (+1.7%) 0.188s 59 1.21x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 0.863s 1.022s 0.159s 59 1.25x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 0.964s 1.324s 0.360s 46 1.40x
💻 Local Nitro 1.010s (+3.0%) 1.506s (+37.6% 🔺) 0.496s 40 1.46x
workflow with 25 sequential data payload steps (10KB)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 1.965s (-0.6%) 2.228s (-1.3%) 0.262s 41 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 2.014s (+4.5%) 2.537s (+20.8% 🔺) 0.523s 36 1.02x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 2.130s 2.578s 0.448s 36 1.08x
💻 Local Express 2.402s (-20.4% 🟢) 3.180s (-11.3% 🟢) 0.778s 29 1.22x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 2.691s 3.008s 0.318s 30 1.37x
💻 Local Nitro 3.032s (~) 3.649s (-2.9%) 0.616s 25 1.54x
workflow with 50 sequential data payload steps (10KB)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 4.034s (+1.1%) 4.626s (+5.9% 🔺) 0.592s 26 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 4.075s 4.614s 0.539s 27 1.01x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 4.099s (~) 4.665s (+1.3%) 0.566s 26 1.02x
💻 Local Express 7.186s (-22.0% 🟢) 7.702s (-23.1% 🟢) 0.516s 16 1.78x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 8.674s 9.017s 0.344s 14 2.15x
💻 Local Nitro 9.266s (~) 10.019s (~) 0.753s 12 2.30x
workflow with 10 concurrent data payload steps (10KB)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Next.js (Turbopack) 0.281s 1.043s 0.763s 58 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Express 0.287s (+1.7%) 1.007s (~) 0.720s 60 1.02x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 0.287s (+1.4%) 1.007s (~) 0.720s 60 1.02x
💻 Local Express 0.556s (-0.8%) 1.004s (~) 0.448s 60 1.98x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 0.565s 1.022s 0.457s 59 2.01x
💻 Local Nitro 0.623s (+3.0%) 1.022s (~) 0.399s 59 2.22x
workflow with 25 concurrent data payload steps (10KB)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Nitro 0.502s (+1.2%) 1.007s (~) 0.505s 90 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Express 0.502s (-1.4%) 1.007s (~) 0.504s 90 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 0.631s 1.190s 0.559s 76 1.26x
💻 Local Express 2.329s (-7.3% 🟢) 3.007s (~) 0.678s 30 4.64x
💻 Local Nitro 2.491s (-1.8%) 3.009s (~) 0.518s 30 4.96x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 2.578s 3.009s 0.431s 30 5.13x
workflow with 50 concurrent data payload steps (10KB)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 0.800s (-2.3%) 1.009s (-0.9%) 0.208s 119 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 0.829s (+4.9%) 1.010s (~) 0.181s 119 1.04x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 1.075s 1.581s 0.506s 77 1.34x
💻 Local Express 10.112s (-9.6% 🟢) 10.607s (-11.2% 🟢) 0.495s 12 12.64x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 10.499s 11.206s 0.708s 11 13.12x
💻 Local Nitro 11.042s (-1.3%) 11.483s (-1.6%) 0.441s 11 13.80x
Stream Benchmarks (includes TTFB metrics)
workflow with stream

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time TTFB Slurp Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
💻 Local 🥇 Express 0.138s (-30.9% 🟢) 1.004s (~) 0.009s (-22.3% 🟢) 1.015s (~) 0.878s 10 1.00x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 0.171s 1.003s 0.013s 1.018s 0.847s 10 1.24x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 0.189s 1.000s 0.031s 1.039s 0.850s 10 1.37x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 0.210s (+2.2%) 0.999s (~) 0.002s (+6.7% 🔺) 1.011s (~) 0.802s 10 1.52x
💻 Local Nitro 0.214s (~) 1.005s (~) 0.013s (+5.6% 🔺) 1.020s (~) 0.806s 10 1.56x
🐘 Postgres Express 0.219s (+6.9% 🔺) 0.995s (~) 0.002s (-6.3% 🟢) 1.011s (~) 0.792s 10 1.59x
stream pipeline with 5 transform steps (1MB)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time TTFB Slurp Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 0.617s (-2.1%) 1.005s (~) 0.004s (+4.4%) 1.022s (~) 0.405s 59 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 0.655s (+4.9%) 1.022s (+1.6%) 0.004s (-2.0%) 1.040s (+1.7%) 0.385s 58 1.06x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 0.668s 1.011s 0.010s 1.024s 0.356s 59 1.08x
💻 Local Nitro 0.756s (-9.8% 🟢) 1.013s (~) 0.010s (+5.5% 🔺) 1.024s (-8.2% 🟢) 0.268s 59 1.23x
💻 Local Express 0.775s (+2.3%) 1.011s (-1.7%) 0.010s (+4.7%) 1.227s (+18.0% 🔺) 0.453s 49 1.26x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 0.814s 1.246s 0.070s 1.327s 0.513s 46 1.32x
10 parallel streams (1MB each)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time TTFB Slurp Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 0.957s (~) 1.220s (-4.6%) 0.000s (-53.1% 🟢) 1.233s (-5.6% 🟢) 0.276s 49 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 0.989s (+2.1%) 1.321s (+5.9% 🔺) 0.000s (-47.8% 🟢) 1.334s (+6.1% 🔺) 0.345s 46 1.03x
💻 Local Nitro 1.223s (~) 2.021s (~) 0.001s (+400.0% 🔺) 2.023s (~) 0.801s 30 1.28x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 1.243s 2.020s 0.000s 2.023s 0.781s 30 1.30x
💻 Local Express 1.283s (+4.7%) 2.017s (~) 0.000s (+7.1% 🔺) 2.198s (+8.7% 🔺) 0.915s 28 1.34x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 1.454s 1.810s 0.000s 1.887s 0.433s 32 1.52x
fan-out fan-in 10 streams (1MB each)

💻 Local Development

World Framework Workflow Time TTFB Slurp Wall Time Overhead Samples vs Fastest
🐘 Postgres 🥇 Express 1.749s (-1.3%) 2.066s (-5.1% 🟢) 0.000s (+Infinity% 🔺) 2.089s (-5.0% 🟢) 0.340s 29 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Nitro 1.755s (-2.0%) 2.104s (-1.7%) 0.000s (+93.1% 🔺) 2.114s (-2.8%) 0.358s 29 1.00x
🐘 Postgres Next.js (Turbopack) 2.153s 2.618s 0.000s 2.651s 0.498s 23 1.23x
💻 Local Express 2.670s (-23.0% 🟢) 3.029s (-24.9% 🟢) 0.001s (-6.3% 🟢) 3.031s (-24.9% 🟢) 0.361s 20 1.53x
💻 Local Nitro 2.911s (-14.1% 🟢) 3.193s (-20.8% 🟢) 0.001s (+18.4% 🔺) 3.195s (-20.8% 🟢) 0.284s 19 1.66x
💻 Local Next.js (Turbopack) 2.966s 3.348s 0.001s 3.351s 0.385s 19 1.70x

Summary

Fastest Framework by World

Winner determined by most benchmark wins

World 🥇 Fastest Framework Wins
💻 Local Express 19/21
🐘 Postgres Express 14/21
Fastest World by Framework

Winner determined by most benchmark wins

Framework 🥇 Fastest World Wins
Express 🐘 Postgres 15/21
Next.js (Turbopack) 🐘 Postgres 12/21
Nitro 🐘 Postgres 19/21
Column Definitions
  • Workflow Time: Runtime reported by workflow (completedAt - createdAt) - primary metric
  • TTFB: Time to First Byte - time from workflow start until first stream byte received (stream benchmarks only)
  • Slurp: Time from first byte to complete stream consumption (stream benchmarks only)
  • Wall Time: Total testbench time (trigger workflow + poll for result)
  • Overhead: Testbench overhead (Wall Time - Workflow Time)
  • Samples: Number of benchmark iterations run
  • vs Fastest: How much slower compared to the fastest configuration for this benchmark

Worlds:

  • 💻 Local: In-memory filesystem world (local development)
  • 🐘 Postgres: PostgreSQL database world (local development)
  • ▲ Vercel: Vercel production/preview deployment
  • 🌐 Turso: Community world (local development)
  • 🌐 MongoDB: Community world (local development)
  • 🌐 Redis: Community world (local development)
  • 🌐 Jazz: Community world (local development)

📋 View full workflow run

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Updates the CI PR “tests running” sticky comment flow to avoid exceeding runner ARG_MAX by passing the stale-banner content to marocchino/sticky-pull-request-comment via a file path instead of an inline message:.

Changes:

  • Renders the stale-banner + previous results into a temp file in the actions/github-script step.
  • Switches the “stale warning” update step to use sticky-pull-request-comment’s path: input.
  • Adds an empty changeset entry to reflect CI-only scope.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File Description
.github/workflows/tests.yml Writes the stale comment body to disk and passes it via path: to prevent oversized action invocation payloads.
.changeset/pr-comment-stale-banner-via-path.md Adds an empty changeset (CI-only change).

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

Comment thread .github/workflows/tests.yml Outdated
@TooTallNate TooTallNate changed the title ci: pass stale-banner via path: to sticky-pull-request-comment instead of message: ci: pass stale-banner via path: to sticky-pull-request-comment in tests + benchmarks workflows May 1, 2026
@TooTallNate TooTallNate merged commit 059821c into main May 4, 2026
340 of 355 checks passed
@TooTallNate TooTallNate deleted the pr-comment-stale-banner-via-path branch May 4, 2026 04:09
pranaygp added a commit that referenced this pull request May 4, 2026
…lier-errors-followups

* origin-https/main:
  Fix pnpm type issue after tanstack PR (#1907)
  ci: pass stale-banner via path: to sticky-pull-request-comment in tests + benchmarks workflows (#1887)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants