[Snyk] Security upgrade kedro from 0.18.14 to 0.19.3

[maxschulz-COL]

This PR was automatically created by Snyk using the credentials of a real user.

Snyk has created this PR to fix one or more vulnerable packages in the `pip` dependencies of this project.

Changes included in this PR

• Changes to the following files to upgrade the vulnerable dependencies to a fixed version:
  • vizro-core/snyk/requirements.txt

⚠️ Warning

pandas 1.3.5 requires numpy, which is not installed.
kedro 0.18.14 has requirement importlib-metadata<5.0,>=3.6; python_version < "3.8", but you have importlib-metadata 6.7.0.

Vulnerabilities that will be fixed

By pinning:

Severity	Priority Score (*)	Issue	Upgrade	Breaking Change	Exploit Maturity
	551/1000 Why? Recently disclosed, Has a fix available, CVSS 5.3	Arbitrary File Write via Archive Extraction (Zip Slip) SNYK-PYTHON-KEDRO-6370687	kedro: 0.18.14 -> 0.19.3	No	No Known Exploit

(*) Note that the real score may have changed since the PR was raised.

Some vulnerabilities couldn't be fully fixed and so Snyk will still find them when the project is tested again. This may be because the vulnerability existed within more than one direct dependency, but not all of the affected dependencies could be upgraded.

Check the changes in this PR to ensure they won't cause issues with your project.

---

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

🛠 Adjust project settings

📚 Read more about Snyk's upgrade and patch logic

---

Learn how to fix vulnerabilities with free interactive lessons:

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

[huong-li-nguyen]

Took out kedro-datasets given that we need to upgrade to kedro>=0.19.2, but based on the failing unit tests, seems like we still need it? Where do we actually stand on the whole snyk discussion @antonymilne ? 🤔 Do we continue merging these proposals by snyk or do we selectively choose which ones we include?

[antonymilne]

In general I'm working out a scheme for handling these better, which will basically mean ignoring most, if not all, of snyk's suggested bumps or turning off the feature altogether.

Before that's ready, let's continue merging them where it's easy and looks sensible to do so and ignore them where it doesn't. This is definitely a case where it doesn't. Let's just ignore the PR for now and I'll handle it in due course...