update ci workflow node environments

[SourceR85]

Switch from node 14 & 16 to 18 and 20

Aligns with currently supported node versions
https://nodejs.dev/en/about/releases/

I've added node 20, so we get compatibility feedback from within ci pipelines.

Benefits:

• we can drop dependency on "abort-controller" polyfill package.
• enables EPIC: Preparing a punch of incremental PR's: #8661 to use broadcast channel and (W3C compliant) Streams.

[garethbowen]

@SourceR85 Would you mind resolving the conflict and running the build again with the new test suites?

[SourceR85]

@garethbowen Hi, can you re-execute the ci-workflow? (best case: running only the failing tests)

There was a network problem in two test-runner environments:
(one of the error-messages as an example)

E: Failed to fetch http://azure.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/g/gst-plugins-bad1.0/gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad_1.20.3-0ubuntu1_amd64.deb  Unable to connect to azure.archive.ubuntu.com:http: [IP: 52.252.75.106 80]

Everything else was running fine.

[garethbowen]

@SourceR85 I've re-run and everything passed. GitHub isn't happy because you've changed the builds so some "required" builds never ran. This is not a blocker.

However I'm a little concerned about dropping support for Node 14, not because we shouldn't do it, but it's a breaking change so we should probably do a major release. What do you think?

[SourceR85]

Sounds like a plan 👍
I'd like to see #8665 and #8663 in an upcoming major.
But this summer I'm to short on spare time to work on #8711...

[alxndrsn]

However I'm a little concerned about dropping support for Node 14, not because we shouldn't do it, but it's a breaking change so we should probably do a major release. What do you think?

I don't think we should be shy about dropping support for EOL'd node versions. Even node 16 is EOL at this point.

[garethbowen]

I don't think we should be shy about dropping support for EOL'd node versions. Even node 16 is EOL at this point.

I agree, but needs communication, probably a major version bump is correct. With everything else that's merged, or soon to be merged (I hope), but not yet released, we should probably be talking about a major release anyway.

[SourceR85]

I don't think we should be shy about dropping support for EOL'd node versions. Even node 16 is EOL at this point.

I agree, but needs communication, probably a major version bump is correct. With everything else that's merged, or soon to be merged (I hope), but not yet released, we should probably be talking about a major release anyway.

Since node 16 CI-Actions will be automatically upgraded to node 20 in march, I think we already have a release date.

[SourceR85]

However I'm a little concerned about dropping support for Node 14, not because we shouldn't do it, but it's a breaking change so we should probably do a major release. What do you think?

I don't think we should be shy about dropping support for EOL'd node versions. Even node 16 is EOL at this point.

How's your suggestion, should I drop node 16 too? Add 21?

[alxndrsn]

How's your suggestion, should I drop node 16 too? Add 21?

I don't mind about 16, but I don't think it's necessary.

I don't think odd-numbered releases should be included.

I would prefer to see unrelated changes to whitespace and action.yml excluded from this PR.

But overall, I'm happy to see this merged once the build is passing.

[SourceR85]

Found (and fixed) out-of-bound exceptions: #8861

[SourceR85]

Okay, everything's ✅
Next step: out with the old Branch protection rules (node 14-16) and in with the new (18-20)

[garethbowen]

LGTM.

I'm happy to change the branch protection rules but this has to be coordinated because it'll block any other PRs until this is merged.

@janl Can I get your thumbs up on this PR before we officially drop support for old Node versions?