Migrate Node.js to 24 LTS

[bilalabbad]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores

  • Migrated Node.js runtime from 22 to 24 LTS across CI workflows, Docker builds, and package engine constraints; added Node 24+ engine declarations to frontend packages.
  • Switched one workflow’s install step from pnpm to npm.
  • Updated an internal SDK submodule to a newer commit.
  • Added a housekeeping changelog entry noting the Node 24 migration.

• Documentation

  • Updated frontend setup and prerequisite notes to require Node.js 24+.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 9bbcbc39-71db-45ef-afb2-fff55f2e6222

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 75d5a81 and b5690b3.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• python_sdk

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• python_sdk

---

Walkthrough

CI workflows and the frontend Docker build stage were changed to use Node.js 24 instead of 22. Package engine constraints were added or bumped to >=24.0 in docs/package.json, frontend/app/package.json, and frontend/packages/ui/package.json. Frontend setup and prereq documentation was updated to state Node.js 24+. A changelog entry records the migration. The Chromatic GitHub Actions workflow switched its install step from pnpm to npm. The python_sdk submodule reference was advanced to a newer commit. No application code or public APIs were modified.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The pull request has no description provided, missing all key sections from the template including Why, What changed, How to review, How to test, and Impact & rollout sections that would help reviewers understand the scope and rationale.	Add a comprehensive description following the repository template, explaining why the upgrade is needed, what was changed across each component, testing instructions, and any backward compatibility implications.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'Migrate Node.js to 24 LTS' clearly and concisely summarizes the primary change across the entire changeset, which updates Node.js from version 22 to 24 LTS across CI workflows, Docker builds, documentation, and package configurations.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@changelog/`+node24-migration.housekeeping.md:
- Line 1: The file ending containing the line "Migrated Node.js from version 22
to 24 LTS across CI workflows, Docker build, and package engine constraints." is
missing a trailing newline; fix by editing that markdown file and ensure there
is a single newline character at EOF (i.e., add a blank line after the existing
text) so the file ends with a trailing newline.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

• Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
• Create a new PR with the fixes

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 11e20fef-7673-4c11-9c11-cf176b6f3504

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 270cfb1 and dfac13d.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)

• .github/workflows/ci.yml
• changelog/+node24-migration.housekeeping.md
• development/Dockerfile
• docs/docs/development/frontend/getting-set-up.mdx
• docs/docs/snippets/pre-reqs-frontend.mdx
• docs/package.json
• frontend/app/package.json
• frontend/packages/ui/package.json

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

.github/workflows/chromatic.yml (1)

37-37: Use deterministic CI installs (npm ci) instead of npm install.

The current npm install on line 37 can yield non-reproducible dependency resolution across runs. Use npm ci for stable, deterministic Chromatic builds since package-lock.json is present.

Proposed update

       - name: Install Node.js
         uses: actions/setup-node@v6
         with:
           node-version: 24
+          cache: npm
+          cache-dependency-path: frontend/packages/ui/package-lock.json
       - name: Install dependencies
-        run: npm install
+        run: npm ci

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In @.github/workflows/chromatic.yml at line 37, Replace the workflow step that
currently executes "run: npm install" with a deterministic install by using "npm
ci" instead; update the Chromatic workflow entry that contains the "run: npm
install" command so it runs "npm ci" (ensuring package-lock.json is committed)
to achieve reproducible CI installs.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In @.github/workflows/chromatic.yml:
- Line 37: Replace the workflow step that currently executes "run: npm install"
with a deterministic install by using "npm ci" instead; update the Chromatic
workflow entry that contains the "run: npm install" command so it runs "npm ci"
(ensuring package-lock.json is committed) to achieve reproducible CI installs.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 9b3ca597-f530-4579-bc03-66c2e50a2eda

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dfac13d and d88f594.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/chromatic.yml

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 27.96%

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

❌ 12 regressed benchmarks

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	test_get_schema	250.1 ms	327.7 ms	-23.67%
❌	test_get_menu	188.4 ms	245.4 ms	-23.24%
❌	test_schemabranch_process	793.8 ms	1,040.9 ms	-23.74%
❌	test_schemabranch_duplicate	5.5 ms	7.2 ms	-23.75%
❌	test_graphql_generate_schema	372.5 ms	517 ms	-27.96%
❌	test_nodemanager_querypeers	1.3 ms	1.5 ms	-17.62%
❌	test_relationshipmanager_getpeer	132 µs	160.4 µs	-17.66%
❌	test_query_one_model	354.1 ms	464.3 ms	-23.74%
❌	test_query_rel_many	524.2 ms	692.1 ms	-24.25%
❌	test_base_schema_duplicate_CoreProposedChange	1.7 ms	2.1 ms	-18.62%
❌	test_query_rel_one	501.8 ms	662.8 ms	-24.29%
❌	test_load_node_to_db_node_schema	51.6 ms	66.4 ms	-22.24%

---

_{Comparing bab-node-24 (579e8c8) with stable (33332fc)¹}

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on stable (2142bc3) during the generation of this report, so 33332fc was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[ogenstad]

The failure in the CI should be fixed after a rebase. Having said that perhaps we want this to go into stable instead?

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 8 files

[fatih-acar]

I believe it's safe to this upgrade in stable directly but would like you to confirm
Also need this change in the enterprise repo.