[FarhanAliRaza]

What

Bump CodSpeedHQ/action in performance.yml from v5.2.1 to v5.6.3.

Why

ubuntu-latest started resolving to Ubuntu 26.04 today. The benchmarks job fails in the CodSpeed runner before any benchmark runs:

Error: Unsupported system
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.

Runner 5.2.1 accepts Ubuntu 22.04 and 24.04 only. Runner 5.5.0 added Ubuntu 26.04 on x86_64 and arm64. Action v5.6.3 bundles runner 5.6.3.

Last passing run on ubuntu-24.04: https://github.com/reflex-dev/reflex/actions/runs/42644874458. First failing run on ubuntu-26.04: https://github.com/reflex-dev/reflex/actions/runs/42665058468. Same action SHA, same workflow, only the image differs.

Alternative

Pin the job to ubuntu-24.04. That works too, but it leaves the action four minor versions behind, and the bump keeps the job on the default image like before.

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 1 file

_{View guided diff | Re-trigger cubic}

[greptile-apps]

Confidence Score: 5/5

[Medium impact] The PR appears safe to merge; no actionable defects were found in the action-pin update.

Summary

Updates the pinned CodSpeedHQ/action version from v5.2.1 to v5.6.3 in .github/workflows/performance.yml, intended to restore benchmarks on Ubuntu 26.04.

• The benchmark job runs with CodSpeed v5.6.3 on the default Ubuntu runner.

_{Reviews (1) · Last reviewed commit: "Bump CodSpeed action to v5.6.3 for Ubunt..." · Reviewed by Greptile}

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will improve performance by 6.09%

3 warnings

⚠️ 17 benchmarks are dominated by system calls

System calls cannot be simulated consistently and are left out of the measure. The reported value understates the real cost. Switch to the Walltime instrument to measure them.

Learn more about system calls

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 125 benchmarks with a significant change ran on different hardware

Their base and head results were measured on machines with a different CPU, core count or memory, so the changes might not come from the code. Run base and head on the same runner type.

Learn more about Macro Runners

See affected benchmarks

⚠️ 125 benchmarks with a significant change ran in a different software environment

Their base and head results were measured with a different OS or toolchain, such as compiler, runtime or library versions, so the changes might come from this difference rather than from the code. Open an affected benchmark to see what changed.

See affected benchmarks

⚡ 125 improved benchmarks
✅ 23 untouched benchmarks

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	test_state_update_wire_serialization[dataclass_1000]	15.9 ms	14.1 ms	+12.37%
⚡	test_state_update_wire_serialization[mapping_100]	286.9 µs	256.9 µs	+11.7%
⚡	test_route_argument_extraction	116.7 µs	106.1 µs	+9.99%
⚡	test_decode_event_headers[64]	183.3 µs	166.7 µs	+9.96%
⚡	test_state_update_wire_serialization[model_1000]	26.9 ms	24.7 ms	+8.85%
⚡	test_isinstance_container[list_optional]	286.7 ms	264 ms	+8.6%
⚡	test_decode_event_headers[4]	42 µs	38.8 µs	+8.37%
⚡	test_isinstance_container[list_typeddict]	111.5 ms	102.9 ms	+8.28%
⚡	test_import_reflex	9.7 ms	9 ms	+8.2%
⚡	test_get_state[disk]	947.4 µs	876.4 µs	+8.09%
⚡	test_process_event_burst_same_token[100]	1.3 s	1.2 s	+8.07%
⚡	test_get_state_uncached[disk]	56.3 ms	52.3 ms	+7.72%
⚡	test_isinstance_scalar	107.4 ms	99.8 ms	+7.69%
⚡	test_proxy_list_mutation	9.9 ms	9.2 ms	+7.68%
⚡	test_format_var_outside_operation	31.9 ms	29.6 ms	+7.64%
⚡	test_state_access[write_own]	134.3 ms	124.8 ms	+7.6%
⚡	test_process_event[table]	332.2 ms	308.8 ms	+7.58%
⚡	test_process_event_burst_independent_tokens[10]	18.6 ms	17.3 ms	+7.58%
⚡	test_get_state[redis]	31 ms	28.8 ms	+7.39%
⚡	test_event_payload_plain_collection	69 ms	64.4 ms	+7.29%
...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Tip

Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing FarhanAliRaza:fix/codspeed-ubuntu-2604 (63599b6) with main (0bc8a45)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on main (bf7b8d9) during the generation of this report, so 0bc8a45 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩