Bring contentful-migration version for contentful-action in line with contentful-cli

[togmund]

The version of contentful-migration that this action uses is a bit out of date:
https://github.com/contentful-userland/contentful-action/blob/main/package.json#L24

    "contentful-migration": "^0.17.1-beta0",

When we have developers preparing, pulling, and testing migrations using the contentful-cli, they are doing so with a newer version of contentful-migration under the hood:
https://github.com/contentful/contentful-cli/blob/master/package.json#L82

    "contentful-migration": "^4.1.1",

This version difference causes migrations that are prepared with one set of assumptions to be rejected by the action because doesn't recognize the up-to-date DSL. One such example is the method changeFieldControl which is not recognized as a valid property name:

Line 125: "changeFieldControl" is not a valid property name for a content type.
123:     .omitted(false);
124: 
125:   tasks.changeFieldControl("taskTitle", "builtin", "singleLine", {});

We have a fork of the contentful-action with a current version of contentful-migration that we are pointing our migration action at, however when it runs we hit what looks like a peer-dependency/typescript problem:
https://github.com/autotelic/contentful-action/tree/chore/update-contentful-migration

Error: Cannot find any-observable implementation nor global.Observable. You must install polyfill or call require("any-observable/register") with your preferred implementation, e.g. require("any-observable/register")('rxjs') on application load prior to any require("any-observable").

We're thumping against this problem, and if we succeed in building a dist/index.js file that doesn't panic on run then we'll shoot it your way as a PR

If you have thoughts on how to bump this that we're missing we'd love have that parity between these two tools.

[pixelass]

Thank you for reporting this issue. We will look into it.