[Snyk] Security upgrade markdownlint-cli from 0.31.1 to 0.38.0

[naiba4]

This PR was automatically created by Snyk using the credentials of a real user.

Snyk has created this PR to fix one or more vulnerable packages in the `npm` dependencies of this project.

Changes included in this PR

• Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
  • packages/scripts/package.json

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

With an upgrade:

Severity	Priority Score (*)	Issue	Breaking Change	Exploit Maturity
	170/1000 Why? Confidentiality impact: None, Integrity impact: None, Availability impact: High, Scope: Unchanged, Exploit Maturity: Proof of Concept, User Interaction (UI): None, Privileges Required (PR): None, Attack Complexity: Low, Attack Vector: Network, EPSS: 0.01055, Social Trends: No, Days since published: 0, Reachable: No, Transitive dependency: Yes, Is Malicious: No, Business Criticality: High, Provider Urgency: High, Package Popularity Score: 99, Impact: 5.99, Likelihood: 2.83, Score Version: V5	Infinite loop SNYK-JS-MARKDOWNIT-6483324	No	Proof of Concept

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Commit messages

Package name: markdownlint-cli

The new version differs by 178 commits.

• 1d2f248 Bump version 0.38.0
• 8f3daa1 Bump ava from 6.0.0 to 6.0.1
• aaa4119 Bump ava from 5.3.1 to 6.0.0
• 770817b Remove support for end-of-life Node.js version 16.
• 3e6f0dc Update tests to account for deprecation of MD002, MD006, and "header" aliases, fix new prettier issues.
• 75b959d Bump markdownlint from 0.31.1 to 0.32.1
• 8ca31c4 Bump ignore from 5.2.4 to 5.3.0
• d38e228 Bump actions/setup-node from 3 to 4
• f919a81 Bump commander from 11.0.0 to 11.1.0
• febea62 Bump glob from 10.3.7 to 10.3.10
• 8354710 Bump glob from 10.3.4 to 10.3.7
• 3f18b94 Bump version 0.37.0
• 6b233de Bump docker/setup-buildx-action from 2 to 3
• 1040117 Bump docker/login-action from 2 to 3
• e7eff9e Bump docker/metadata-action from 4 to 5
• 0a0c9b8 Bump docker/build-push-action from 4 to 5
• 0d6718c Bump docker/setup-qemu-action from 2 to 3
• 26ac539 Bump markdownlint from 0.31.0 to 0.31.1
• f6aa692 Bump markdownlint from 0.30.0 to 0.31.0
• 8b08b15 Bump actions/checkout from 3 to 4
• 1d1e5ea Bump version 0.36.0
• 58ab41c Bump glob from 10.3.3 to 10.3.4
• 24627da Bump execa from 7.2.0 to 8.0.1
• 5b45a20 Bump markdownlint from 0.29.0 to 0.30.0

See the full diff

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.

---

Note: You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized Snyk to open fix PRs.

For more information:
🧐 View latest project report

🛠 Adjust project settings

📚 Read more about Snyk's upgrade and patch logic

---

Learn how to fix vulnerabilities with free interactive lessons:

🦉 Learn about vulnerability in an interactive lesson of Snyk Learn.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
gutenberg	❌ Failed (Inspect)			Mar 25, 2024 11:13pm
gutenberg-wd9x	❌ Failed (Inspect)			Mar 25, 2024 11:13pm

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 2 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +1 -1
Percentile : 0.8%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.json : +1 -1

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[github-actions]

Warning: Type of PR label mismatch

To merge this PR, it requires exactly 1 label indicating the type of PR. Other labels are optional and not being checked here.

• Type-related labels to choose from: [Type] Automated Testing, [Type] Breaking Change, [Type] Bug, [Type] Build Tooling, [Type] Code Quality, [Type] Copy, [Type] Developer Documentation, [Type] Enhancement, [Type] Experimental, [Type] Feature, [Type] New API, [Type] Task, [Type] Technical Prototype, [Type] Performance, [Type] Project Management, [Type] Regression, [Type] Security, [Type] WP Core Ticket, Backport from WordPress Core.
• Labels found: Extra Small.

Read more about Type labels in Gutenberg. Don't worry if you don't have the required permissions to add labels; the PR reviewer should be able to help with the task.