build: sync package versions to match Authoring MFE for Teak

[tecoholic]

Description

A few things about the current state of this plugin has been bothering me:

1. tutor-contrib-aspects installs this plugin direct from Github with the --legacy-peer-deps flag. So, it will always install the main branch without any release/version pinning.
2. Trying to get the basic CI tasks like linting to work was giving headaches with dependencies
3. RenovateBot automation has been mostly stuck

So, I am creating this MR to see if we can do some housekeeping tasks by resolving the inconsistencies between this repo and the frontend-app-authoring and make the situation better.

Here are the goals I hope to achieve:

1. tutor-contrib-aspects installs a specific version of this plugin. Either using a Github branch/tag or an NPM package version.
2. The npm install can be straightforward without the --legacy-peer-deps in a cleaner way.
3. CI can be reliably run for the PRs.
4. RenovateBot automation is properly setup to provide automated updates for dependencies.

Important Changes

• Changed the Node version from 22 to 20 matching the Authoring MFE
• Removed a number of explicitly installed eslint plugins in favour of the @edx/eslint- packages to reduce dependency resolution failures.
• Matched the version of the dependencies like frontend-platform, frontend-build..etc., to that of Authoring MFE.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @tecoholic!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-frontend.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 48.50%. Comparing base (b628db3) to head (3fc3050).
⚠️ Report is 25 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #51       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   16.61%   48.50%   +31.88%     
===========================================
  Files          15       15               
  Lines         331      334        +3     
  Branches       65       60        -5     
===========================================
+ Hits           55      162      +107     
+ Misses        265      171       -94     
+ Partials       11        1       -10     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[bmtcril]

Thanks for taking this on, it's been on my list to look into these failures for a while. One thing that we have talked about previously was also ignoring @edx/frontend-app-authoring until we have an actual released version of it, which I think will fix some of the renovate issues?

[tecoholic]

@bmtcril I agree about skipping the frontend-app-auhtoring as a dependency here. Technically I don't think, we need it for any CI tasks (testing and publishing).

[tecoholic]

@bmtcril Sine the "peerDependenciesMeta" defines @edx/frontend-app-authoring as optional, it looks like having it in the package.json isn't causing any issues now.

@farhaanbukhsh I tested this branch to install in frontend-app-authoring without --legacy-peer-deps locally and it works without raising any version conflicts.

And you can see that the CI are passing successfully now. If we can

1. Merge and tag this a release/teak.1
2. Update tutor-contrib-aspects's npm install ... line to install from that tag without the --legacy-peer-deps
3. Make a new release of tutor-contrib-aspects

We should be able to close openedx/tutor-contrib-aspects#1091.

[farhaanbukhsh]

👍

• ✅ I tested this by installing it without peer-dependency and making sure it's working
• ✅ I read through the code
• ❌ I checked for accessibility issues
• ❌ Includes documentation