Update Node version to 20

[gerteck]

What is the purpose of this pull request?

• Documentation update
• Bug fix
• Feature addition or enhancement
• Code maintenance
• DevOps
• Improve developer experience
• Others, please explain:

Overview of changes:
This PR seeks to upgrade Node.js to Node 20.

• Relevant MB documentation on Node.js migration
• Previous upgrading Node 14 -> 16 PR

Addresses and Fixes #2541

Anything you'd like to highlight/discuss:

Before the version update, check that

• any deprecated syntax to be refactored
• all user-facing functionalities are working
• no issues with the development setup
  • Tested on fresh Ubuntu VM, node v20.16.0
• update related GitHub Actions and workflows
  • Test updated Actions
• docs are updated
• Deployment to Netlify/other platforms is ok
  • Netlify (PRs 1, 2 opened for netlify quickstart repos to update node version number)
  • GH-Pages
• Deployment via CI platforms is ok
  • GH Actions test run
  • (Other platforms can't be tested due to deployment cachedir bug, need new release to update previous patch by Fix gh-pages deployment cache "path" argument must be of type string undefined. #2562 )
  • Travis CI (education plan also suddenly expired)
  • AppVeyor CI
  • Circle CI
• Update netlify.toml

Related PRs:

• Update MarkBind Action node version to 20 markbind-action#16
• Update Node version to 20 init-typical-netlify#5
• Update Node version to 20 init-minimal-netlify#5

Related Changes

• Update Vue-Jest dev Dependency for Vue Components Package #2565
  • (Resolves Document: Node LTS (v20) and python 3.12 does not work on MarkBind install #2496)
• Chore (docs): Add getting started warning for python 3.12 with node LTS #2536 (Changes Reverted)

Other:
Node.js Changelogs

• Node v17.0
• Node v18.0
• Node v19.0
• Node v20.0

To-do:

• Test deployment via other CI platforms once MarkBind ver is updated to reflect latest patches.

Testing instructions:

Proposed commit message: (wrap lines at 72 characters)

Upgrade Node.js to v20

---

Checklist: ☑️

• Updated the documentation for feature additions and enhancements
• Added tests for bug fixes or features
• Linked all related issues
• No unrelated changes

---

Reviewer checklist:

Indicate the SEMVER impact of the PR:

• Major (when you make incompatible API changes)
• Minor (when you add functionality in a backward compatible manner)
• Patch (when you make backward compatible bug fixes)

At the end of the review, please label the PR with the appropriate label: r.Major, r.Minor, r.Patch.

Breaking change release note preparation (if applicable):

• To be included in the release note for any feature that is made obsolete/breaking

Give a brief explanation note about:

• what was the old feature that was made obsolete
• any replacement feature (if any), and
• how the author should modify his website to migrate from the old feature to the replacement feature (if possible).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 51.86%. Comparing base (70ba5e5) to head (ccf9b9c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2569   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   51.86%   51.86%           
=======================================
  Files         127      127           
  Lines        5474     5474           
  Branches     1201     1201           
=======================================
  Hits         2839     2839           
  Misses       2340     2340           
  Partials      295      295           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Tim-Siu]

Hi @gerteck,

Thank you for your meticulous work on this PR!

I noticed the note about testing deployment via other CI platforms once the MarkBind version is updated to reflect the latest patches. Could you perhaps elaborate on why this testing is contingent on the MarkBind version update? I'm curious to understand what these patches entail and how they relate to the deployment testing.

[gerteck]

Could you perhaps elaborate on why this testing is contingent on the MarkBind version update? I'm curious to understand what these patches entail and how they relate to the deployment testing.

Sure!

I was referencing the patch in PR #2562 , which in short fixes markbind deploy without the explicit need to set the cache_dir as per #2547. Previously, markbind deploy would fail on deployment outside of GitHub Actions. This patch is necessary for testing in the ci/cd workflow, since we essentially do:

npm i -g markbind-cli
markbind build
markbind deploy --ci

That said, I suppose a hacky workaround would be to explicitly set env variables (specifically cache_dir) etc in the CI platforms to get around this issue, ceteris paribus, to test the deployment before the patch is made. Though it would be quite out of context.

This issue probably wasn't detected because #2542 had patched this issue in markbind deploy, but only specifically in GitHub Action's environment, with no testing done for Travis CI, AppVeyor or other CI platforms.

---

The other patches aren't required for deployment testing, even #2565 (which was a considerable issue when migrating to node 20, but doesn't affect deployment since it's a dev-dependency). Also, this issue was actually also why I focused working on #2562 earlier on prior.😄

[Tim-Siu]

Hey @gerteck,

Thanks for explaining everything and for all the testing you've done. It's clear you've put in a lot of work, especially with the workaround for the cache_dir issue. I think it's a good idea to update the MarkBind version as it would certainly save efforts, and I'll check with our seniors for their thoughts.

@yucheng11122017, could you take a look at this when you have a moment? With what @gerteck has shared, it seems like updating the MarkBind version (doing a new release) that includes the fixes from PR #2562, could help with our deployment testing on different CI platforms. What do you think about doing the update?

[tlylt]

Thanks @gerteck for your work on this PR!

As outlined in our docs, we aim to support up to the last maintenance lts, which at the moment should be Node v18 (currently on maintenance support). Jumping directly to Node v20 is probably not what we want, unless you have some reasons for this? (Sorry the issue linked was probably not accurate)

We do need to update to v18 ASAP though. If you are keen, I would suggest we close this PR and open a new one to make the changes for v18 migration.

As for your CI testing comment, I can make a release over the weekend for the few fixes you have made (TQ again).

[gerteck]

As outlined in our docs, we aim to support up to the last maintenance lts, which at the moment should be Node v18 (currently on maintenance support). Jumping directly to Node v20 is probably not what we want, unless you have some reasons for this? (Sorry the issue linked was probably not accurate)

The main reason why I directly jumped to Node v20 is because GitHub actions is transitioning directly from node 16 to 20. Although it seems that it has not been actively enforced yet.

We do need to update to v18 ASAP though. If you are keen, I would suggest we close this PR and open a new one to make the changes for v18 migration.

Sure, that would be possible!

[gerteck]

Just for reference, here is the deployment via CI before and after making the new release:

Travis CI:

• before: see error under deploying application
• after: see success under deploying application

AppVeyor CI:

• before
• after

Circle CI:

• after

Thanks again @tlylt for making the new release.

[gerteck]

Will close this PR in favor of more updated #2572