ISSUE-1616: Upgrade to node 16

[keeler]

Summary

Fixes #1616

Bumps the node version to 16 (current active LTS version) in the docker image, package.json, etc.

Details

• Changes to package-lock.json are from running npm audit fix and updating the @hapi/joi dependency to joi (as recommended in a warning from npm ci).

[tooomm]

Hi @keeler, thanks for tackling some of our outstanding issues. ❤️
If you could please move the fixes for the two linked ones out into their own PR's, that helps a lot with reviewing and merging stuff more quickly!

The Docker and CI stuff are a lot of changes on their own, and we are not too experienced with the former.

[keeler]

If you could please move the fixes for the two linked ones out into their own PR's, that helps a lot with reviewing and merging stuff more quickly!

@tooomm Sure thing. I backed out the unrelated changes in this PR and updated so it only applies to issue #1616.

Opened PR #1623 for issue #1533, and opened PR #1624 for the docker image + CI refactor that I ripped out of this PR.

The Docker and CI stuff are a lot of changes on their own, and we are not too experienced with the former.

I'll update the description of #1624 and/or add some comments in a self-review to clarify the changes in detail, but another time. I'm up irresponsibly late at the moment. 😄

[tooomm]

Thanks for the PR split!

I'll update the description of #1624 and/or add some comments in a self-review to clarify the changes in detail, but another time. I'm up irresponsibly late at the moment.

That would be great. Hahah, get some sleep then. 😄

[ZeldaZach]

LTS is 16.15.1

[keeler]

Whoops, good catch. 395d99e

[tooomm]

Does it make sense to not specify the patch version to receive non-breaking fixes? Like 16.15.

[tooomm]

There are still several warnings when running npm ci in the CI:

npm WARN EBADENGINE Unsupported engine {
npm WARN EBADENGINE   package: '[email protected]',
npm WARN EBADENGINE   required: { node: '^16.15.1' },
npm WARN EBADENGINE   current: { node: 'v16.15.0', npm: '8.5.5' }
npm WARN EBADENGINE }
npm WARN skipping integrity check for git dependency ssh://[email protected]/dr4fters/utils.git 
npm WARN deprecated @hapi/[email protected]: Moved to 'npm install @sideway/pinpoint'
npm WARN deprecated @hapi/[email protected]: Moved to 'npm install @sideway/formula'
npm WARN deprecated @hapi/[email protected]: Moved to 'npm install @sideway/address'
npm WARN deprecated @babel/[email protected]: 🚨 This package has been deprecated in favor of separate inclusion of a polyfill and regenerator-runtime (when needed). See the @babel/polyfill docs (https://babeljs.io/docs/en/babel-polyfill) for more information.
npm WARN deprecated @hapi/[email protected]: Switch to 'npm install joi'
npm WARN deprecated [email protected]: core-js@<3.4 is no longer maintained and not recommended for usage due to the number of issues. Because of the V8 engine whims, feature detection in old core-js versions could cause a slowdown up to 100x even if nothing is polyfilled. Please, upgrade your dependencies to the actual version of core-js.

The first is probably save to ignore as the cached node version for 16 is still at 16.15.0 at the moment.

[keeler]

There are still several warnings when running npm ci in the CI:

FYI those warnings were not introduced by the changes in this PR and already existed on master (commit 0c02a92).

I fixed the @hapi/joi warning by moving the dependency to joi as recommended. Seems to work fine for me. 19ec2a3

However, the @babel/polyfill warning seems non-trivial to resolve and will need testing across different browsers. For that reason, and because the warning isn't related to the changes here, I'd argue the @babel/polyfill warning should be resolved in a separate PR. If you don't agree that should go in a separate PR, I'd appreciate advice on how to address this as browser polyfilling is not something I have much experience with. I can try to take a crack if no one else feels comfortable with it either.

@tooomm @ZeldaZach Let me know what you think.

[tooomm]

I fixed the @hapi/joi warning by moving the dependency to joi as recommended. Seems to work fine for me. 19ec2a3

👍

However, the @babel/polyfill warning seems non-trivial to resolve and will need testing across different browsers. For that reason, and because the warning isn't related to the changes here, I'd argue the @babel/polyfill warning should be resolved in a separate PR.

👍

[ZeldaZach]

Seems reasonable, glad we're moving forward! Thanks for the change

[tooomm]

You have to verify, merge and deploy this @ZeldaZach 😉

Same for the small change in #1623