Update package-lock.json to be compatible with npm 6.5.0

[yamgent]

What is the purpose of this pull request? (put "X" next to an item, remove the rest)

• [X] Other, please explain: package-lock.json update

What is the rationale for this request?

• No one in the development team uses npm 5, so it does not make sense to enforce using npm 5.
• Even using an older npm version causes few changes in package-lock.json anyway, so if someone install new things, it is inevitable that someone will have to update the package-lock.json.

What changes did you make? (Give an overview)

The package-lock.json is generated updated by running:

npm i

Then, package-lock.json is modified so that cheerio uses our htmlparser instead of the original htmlparser.

Provide some example code that this change will affect:
NIL

Is there anything you'd like reviewers to focus on?
Check that it does not break anything.

Testing instructions:
NIL

[yamgent]

We now have to be careful not to overwrite this line (2bd9121) every time we update package-lock.json.

Otherwise everything seems to be fine for now.

[yamgent]

As discussed on slack:

On the issue of the npm version, I am still not convinced that updating package-lock.json with npm 6 is a good decision for now (the corresponding diff can be seen in this PR[1]). There is some questionable change in the version specification (meaning there could be a time when someone updates package-lock.json and suddenly our entire build just breaks). I would check all of the package versions if I have the time, but this could be a huge change and I am strapped for time recently to make that kind of check.

Let's stick with using an older npm 5 version. npm 5.10.0 seems to still be making some minor changes[2]. Let's go lower and try npm 5.9.0. (My own edit: We have since decided to use npm 5.8.0, because 5.9.0 didn't have a proper release.

On a side note, does anyone from the senior dev team know what was the npm version that was used to maintain our package-lock.json since last year?

[1] - #756
[2] - #758 (comment)