GeezerVison

Removing "fast-track" label because I don't think we want to do that on an LTS backport.

@Trott could we please also get 66b1356 included 🙏🏼

@Trott could we please also get 66b1356 included 🙏🏼

Done.

thank you @Trott! 🙏

#46242 fixes a critical bug with npm ci that we should really land here too

with above change you can also change the title of this PR - [v18.x backport] deps: upgrade npm to 9.3.1

I'm rolling back this PR to npm 9.2.0 as that is the latest version of npm 9 currently shipping in Node.js 19. npm 9.3.1 is currently on main awaiting a release. I'd like to propose that we work on testing with what has shipped in 19.x, agree to land it, get the backport landed, then independently decide if we want to upgrade to 9.3.1 prior to the LTS release.

CITGM: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3076/
CITGM v18.13.0: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/3072/ from #46025

fwiw, our own citgm suite is not as diverse but i did run it as an exercise: https://github.com/npm/cli/actions/runs/3943506886

notably the tests for mkdirp are broken in their own repo, so that one seems safe to ignore

I'm rolling back this PR to npm 9.2.0 as that is the latest version of npm 9 currently shipping in Node.js 19.

@nlf will this have #46242 , do you see any concerns here?

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/49045/

I'm rolling back this PR to npm 9.2.0 as that is the latest version of npm 9 currently shipping in Node.js 19.

@nlf will this have #46242 , do you see any concerns here?

the bug was introduced in 9.3.0 and resolved in 9.3.1, backporting 9.2.0 should be fine. the only version we explicitly do not want to backport is 9.3.0

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/49053/

TL;DR There are 2 new CITGM failures in this PR as opposed to the CITGM run for the release of v18.13.0 but neither are indications of an problems with npm 9, this PR should be good to go 👍🏼

Failure 1: node-gyp

We are unable to reproduce the node-gyp failure with a production build of Node.js and the current working theory is that the failure is due to the process.version being a prerelease... we can see the exact same failure in other CITGM runs unrelated to this change. just to be sure we ran CITGM no build and everything passed with 18.13.0 + npm 9.2.0

https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker-nobuild/1489/

Failure 2: npm

The npm 9 failures appear to be related to the npm test suite and appear to already be broken on Node.js 19 CITGM as can be seen in the runs for v19.4.0. We need to investigate how to fix this but after reviewing the logs with @nlf we've confirmed that this is a mismatch in snapshots due to system configuration in CITGM (changing tmp directories via env vars). We got a copy of the env vars and @nlf is going to take a look and get the test suite in npm 9 fixed so that it doesn't break in the CitGM environment.

Uh, oops, I updated this to 9.3.1. Feel free to push out the last two commits if you want to roll it back to 9.2.0 and apologies in advance. But I think 9.3.1 should be good?

@Trott since 9.3.1 hasn't made it to current yet I wanted to land 9.2.0 and have a separate conversation about updating to 9.3.1 after it's been out in curent

landed in 7599b91