Skip to content

Conversation

@alexhancock
Copy link
Collaborator

Node LTS Is now 24, and this seems reasonable/good to do

Copy link
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

This PR upgrades the Node.js engine requirement from v22.17.1 to v24.0.0 for the desktop application. The change is motivated by Node.js v24 becoming the new LTS version, though this should be verified as it may be ahead of the official release schedule.

  • Updates Node.js engine constraint to ^24.0.0
  • Changes affect both package.json and package-lock.json

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File Description
ui/desktop/package.json Updates Node.js engine requirement from ^22.17.1 to ^24.0.0
ui/desktop/package-lock.json Synchronizes package-lock.json with the updated Node.js engine requirement
Files not reviewed (1)
  • ui/desktop/package-lock.json: Language not supported

@alexhancock alexhancock merged commit 6f9eafb into main Jan 6, 2026
25 checks passed
@alexhancock alexhancock deleted the alexhancock/node24 branch January 6, 2026 20:09
zanesq added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2026
* 'main' of github.com:block/goose:
  Claude 3.7 is out. we had some harcoded stuff (#6197)
  Release 1.19.0
  chore: upgrade to node v24 as engine (#6361)
  chore(deps): bump rsa from 0.9.9 to 0.9.10 (#6358)
  Bump rust toolchain to 1.92 (current stable) (#6356)
  Hide advanced recipe options under expandable content (#6021)
  fix: use .config/agents (plural) for skills directory (#6357)
  fix: prevent KaTeX from treating underscores as subscripts in plain text (#6242)
  fix: make goose review PRs more like goose contributors do (#6240)
  fix : preserve provider engine type when editing custom providers (#6106)
  feat(providers): add retry for model fetching (#6347)
  allow goose issue solver to react to activation comments (#6239)
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