refactor: Security upgrade ws from 8.20.0 to 8.21.0

[davimacedo]

Snyk has created this PR to fix 1 vulnerabilities in the npm dependencies of this project.

Snyk changed the following file(s):

• package.json

⚠️ Warning

Failed to update the package-lock.json, please update manually before merging.

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed with an upgrade:

	Issue
	Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification) SNYK-JS-WS-17344547

---

Important

• Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.
• Max score is 1000. Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.
• This PR was automatically created by Snyk using the credentials of a real user.

---

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
📜 Customise PR templates
🛠 Adjust project settings
📚 Read about Snyk's upgrade logic

---

Learn how to fix vulnerabilities with free interactive lessons:

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

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated dependencies to the latest stable versions for improved stability and performance.

[parse-github-assistant]

I will reformat the title to use the proper commit message syntax.

[parse-github-assistant]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! We appreciate your effort in improving the project. Please let us know once your pull request is ready for review.

Tip

• Keep pull requests small. Large PRs will be rejected. Break complex features into smaller, incremental PRs.
• Use Test Driven Development. Write failing tests before implementing functionality. Ensure tests pass.
• Group code into logical blocks. Add a short comment before each block to explain its purpose.
• We offer conceptual guidance. Coding is up to you. PRs must be merge-ready for human review.
• Our review focuses on concept, not quality. PRs with code issues will be rejected. Use an AI agent.
• Human review time is precious. Avoid review ping-pong. Inspect and test your AI-generated code.

Note

Please respond to review comments from AI agents just like you would to comments from a human reviewer. Let the reviewer resolve their own comments, unless they have reviewed and accepted your commit, or agreed with your explanation for why the feedback was incorrect.

Caution

Pull requests must be written using an AI agent with human supervision. Pull requests written entirely by a human will likely be rejected, because of lower code quality, higher review effort and the higher risk of introducing bugs. Please note that AI review comments on this pull request alone do not satisfy this requirement. Our CI and AI review are safeguards, not development tools. If many issues are flagged, rethink your development approach. Invest more effort in planning and design rather than using review cycles to fix low-quality code.

[coderabbitai]

Note

Currently processing new changes in this PR. This may take a few minutes, please wait...

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 82ade14a-93db-499e-a240-d8b6379b70ff

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3de7aa3 and 568ca4a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• package.json

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch snyk-fix-4483c188df0dcd11f6ee5e1e3f4852b8

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

Tip

You can make CodeRabbit's review stricter and more nitpicky using the `assertive` profile, if that's what you prefer.

Change the reviews.profile setting to assertive to make CodeRabbit's nitpick more issues in your PRs.