Bump paste govspeak to v0.3

[DilwoarH]

What

Currently, the Paste to Govspeak converter (paste-html-to-govspeak) in the publishing applications automatically converts any H4s, H5s and H6s to a H3 - see https://github.com/alphagov/paste-html-to-govspeak/blob/main/src/html-to-govspeak.js#L88:L89.

We want to remove this functionality and allow H4s, H5s and H6s without them being converted to H3s.

Why

Although GOV.UK doesn't style H4s and below (in non-HTML attachments), it's important for users using assistive technology get the correct heading structure.

https://trello.com/c/aWGmHS2s/573-allow-h4s-to-h6s-with-paste-to-govspeak-converter

⚠️ This repo is Continuously Deployed: make sure you follow the guidance ⚠️

[kevindew]

The audit commit here looks quite eventful. Lots of version changes going on. The failing test seems to be that we lose the ability to do forEach on a HTMLOptionsCollection

content-publisher/app/assets/javascripts/components/autocomplete.js

Line 39 in 76825b8

$select.options.forEach(function ($el) {

I guess that might be because CoreJS changed version? did it incorrectly polyfill that method? Are our other uses of forEach safe?

This change:

document.querySelector('select').options
> HTMLOptionsCollection(2) [option, option, selectedIndex: 0]
document.querySelector('select').options.forEach
> undefined

Before:

document.querySelector('select').options
> HTMLOptionsCollection(1155) [option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, …]
document.querySelector('select').options.forEach
> ƒ forEach() { [native code] }

[DilwoarH]

The audit commit here looks quite eventful. Lots of version changes going on. The failing test seems to be that we lose the ability to do forEach on a HTMLOptionsCollection

content-publisher/app/assets/javascripts/components/autocomplete.js

Line 39 in 76825b8

$select.options.forEach(function ($el) {

I guess that might be because CoreJS changed version? did it incorrectly polyfill that method? Are our other uses of forEach safe?

This change:

document.querySelector('select').options
> HTMLOptionsCollection(2) [option, option, selectedIndex: 0]
document.querySelector('select').options.forEach
> undefined

Before:

document.querySelector('select').options
> HTMLOptionsCollection(1155) [option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, option, …]
document.querySelector('select').options.forEach
> ƒ forEach() { [native code] }

Hey @kevindew - dropped the lock file upgrades, I think we need to decide on a suitable approach for all of this.

[kevindew]

Thanks @DilwoarH

Do you want to just do a separate PR for this one on the audit? I imagine we've got pretty good test coverage in this repo.

[DilwoarH]

Thanks @DilwoarH

Do you want to just do a separate PR for this one on the audit? I imagine we've got pretty good test coverage in this repo.

Yes - probably do the audit updates separately.

[DilwoarH]

Thanks @DilwoarH

Do you want to just do a separate PR for this one on the audit? I imagine we've got pretty good test coverage in this repo.

Hey @kevindew - looks like it was a bug and not a feature: zloirock/core-js#988

credits @ollietreend for finding it