chore(deps): Upgrade hapi/joi dependency

[xlisachan]

Initial review - #12578

Because

• the hapi/joi dependency is deprecated and several versions of it was used throughout the codebase

This pull request

• upgrades hapi/joi dependency to joi v17.4.0 (note: while joi v17.6.0 is the latest version, upgrading to joi 17.6.0 causes a "Cannot mix different versions of joi schemas" since celebrate uses joi 17.4.0.)
• updates outdated joi usage - confirmed with Reino that there is no need to revise where error !== null as "when fxa-payments-server gets an error from the backend, it throws an APIError"
• updates hapi-swagger and its plugins

Issue that this pull request solves

Closes: #12178
Closes: #12477
Closes: #12528

Put an x in the boxes that apply

• My commit is GPG signed.

Follow-up tickets

- Investigate typesafe-joi dependency and better solution as it is a fork of hapi/joi v15.x

[dschom]

LGTM! Just remove that one unneeded async statement and it is good to go.

[xlisachan]

Please note, the first commit (Upgrades joi, hapi-swagger and its plugins) has been approved by Dan.

The second commit (Rewrite typesafe-joi and remove it from package.jsons; still exists in fxa-event-broker) needs to be reviewed. This commit needed to fix a Cannot mix different versions of joi schemas error because we were mixing validation from joi and validation using typesafe-joi which is a fork of @types/hapi__joi and matches the API of hapi/joi v15.x in fxa-shared. Therefore, the following changes have been made:

• Rewrote exported types that were set to typesafe-joi's joi.Literal<>
• Removed typesafe-joi from package.json files where it was no longer used. Note it is still being used in fxa-event-broker

Also, I tried upgrading to joi v17.6.0 (the latest version) again, but celebrate and @hapi/catbox-redis use joi v 17.4.0, which causes a Cannot mix different versions of joi schemas: 17.6.0 and 17.4.0 error (e.g., in server/lib/server.test.js).

Thanks! :)

[xlisachan]

@dschom, please let me know if you have any additional feedback or whether it's good to merge as I don't believe you can mark this PR as approved again after your initial review. Thanks! :)

[xlisachan]

(Dan said it's gtg, rebasing and merging! \o/)