refactor(phone): rename phoneNumber to number

[xDivisionByZerox]

Listed as a todo in #1044.

This PR does the following things:

• move the implementation from phone.phoneNumber() into a new function called phone.number()
• deprecate phone.phoneNumber() via the internal deprecated method
• add a @deprecated JSDoc parameter to the phone.phoneNumber() signature documentation
• duplicates the test checks from phoneNumber() to number()
• add a test case for phoneNumber() deprecation log

[xDivisionByZerox]

The ci is failing with an error I couldn't figure out.

FAIL  test/scripts/apidoc/examplesAndDeprecations.spec.ts > examples and deprecations > Phone > number
AssertionError: expected "warn" to not be called at allexpected "warn" to not be called at all
Received: 
    1st warn call:
    Array [
❯test/scripts/apidoc/examplesAndDeprecations.spec.ts:107:26
      "[@faker-js/faker]: faker.phone.phoneNumber() is deprecated since v7.2.0 and will be removed in v8.0.0. Please use faker.phone.number() instead.",
    ]
105|       } else {
106|         for (const spy of consoleSpies) {
107|           expect(spy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
   | ^
108|         }
109|       }
    2nd warn call:
    Array [
      "[@faker-js/faker]: faker.phone.phoneNumber() is deprecated since v7.2.0 and will be removed in v8.0.0. Please use faker.phone.number() instead.",
Test Files 1 failed | 32 passed (33)
    ]
    3rd warn call:
     Tests 2 failed | 37156 passed | 9 todo (37167)
    Array [
      "[@faker-js/faker]: faker.phone.phoneNumber() is deprecated since v7.2.0 and will be removed in v8.0.0. Please use faker.phone.number() instead.",
    ]
Number of calls: 3

The error states that phone.number() is logging to the console, but if you have a look at the message (and the source code) you can clearly see that phone.phoneNumber() is the one doing the log.

What am I missing?

[ST-DDT]

Faker.fake still uses this method in the example.

[xDivisionByZerox]

Faker.fake still uses this method in the example.

I understand, I usually search with "Find All References" when replacing something. Obviously, these references do not get found.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1063 (ffd9c2d) into main (50d8af1) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1063   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.64%   99.64%           
=======================================
  Files        2135     2135           
  Lines      229190   229213   +23     
  Branches      977      979    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits       228376   228402   +26     
+ Misses        793      790    -3     
  Partials       21       21           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/modules/fake/index.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/modules/phone/index.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/modules/finance/index.ts	100.00% <0.00%> (+0.68%)	⬆️

[ST-DDT]

Faker.fake still uses this method in the example.

I understand, I usually search with "Find All References" when replacing something. Obviously, these references do not get found.

Thats why the test is there 😉

[xDivisionByZerox]

Thats why the test is there 😉

Yeah, but I was totally lost when looking at the error message since I wasn't able to find any (direct) call reference. We could potentially extend the message for these cases (faker.fake)? Not this PR tho.