[code-infra] Update peer dependencies for v8

[Janpot]

Add the 7.0.0-alpha range as currently it errors on npm install.

edit: To clarify, it errors on end-users trying to install both next targets of core and X side-by-side. X doesn't accept the new core v7 alpha packages as a peer dependency yet.

Questions:

• Would it make sense to further tighten the range and remove v5? IIUC the goal is to only support last two majors.

[LukasTy]

Add the 7.0.0-alpha range as currently it errors on npm install.

Are you sure that it errors out because of this? 🤔
I have screwed up the lock file after two dependencies PRs merging. 🙈
#16562

I don't think this change is needed. 🤔

[mui-bot]

Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-16563--material-ui-x.netlify.app/

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against bcb8864

[Janpot]

Are you sure that it errors out because of this? 🤔

Running npm install with

// ./package.json
  "dependencies": {
    "@mui/material": "next",
    "@mui/x-charts-pro": "next",

fails for me with

npm error code ERESOLVE
npm error ERESOLVE could not resolve
npm error
npm error While resolving: @mui/x-charts-pro@8.0.0-alpha.11
npm error Found: @mui/material@7.0.0-alpha.1
npm error node_modules/@mui/material
npm error   @mui/material@"next" from the root project
npm error   peer @mui/material@"7.0.0-alpha.1" from @mui/icons-material@7.0.0-alpha.1
npm error   node_modules/@mui/icons-material
npm error     @mui/icons-material@"next" from the root project
npm error
...

The same command with

// ./package.json
  "dependencies": {
    "@mui/material": "next",
    // csbci for this PR
    "@mui/x-charts-pro": "https://pkg.csb.dev/mui/mui-x/commit/4ce90d46/@mui/x-charts-pro",

installs correctly

I don't think this change is needed. 🤔

We'll have to update the peer dependencies for v8 so it can work with core v7. This just sets it for the prerelease so we can test this without having to make npm do legacy peer deps handling. This change shouldn't be cherry-picked

The lock file changes are unrelated, something on master is not quite there

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[LukasTy]

LGTM. 👍
Let's allow for easier ESM adoption/testing. 👍

Would it make sense to further tighten the range and remove v5? IIUC the goal is to only support last two majors.

That's a topic for the "product" finalize, but based on brief discussion on Friday, we don't feel like it would be for the better product wise. 🤷