fix(address.city): use string argument

[xDivisionByZerox]

Fixes #682

[xDivisionByZerox]

Should the JSDOCs have a @see faker.fake line in it, since it's used to parse the formats?

[xDivisionByZerox]

Should I add tests for address.city since there are non so far. Or should this be done in a separate PR?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #683 (c486c6f) into main (b41c662) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head c486c6f differs from pull request most recent head 313b8b1. Consider uploading reports for the commit 313b8b1 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #683   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.42%   99.42%           
=======================================
  Files        1958     1958           
  Lines      210862   210879   +17     
  Branches      919      924    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits       209649   209666   +17     
  Misses       1156     1156           
  Partials       57       57           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/address.ts	99.81% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

[ST-DDT]

What is the added benefit of using address.prefix('format') to just using faker.fake('format')?

[ST-DDT]

Should I add tests for address.city since there are non so far. Or should this be done in a separate PR?

Tests would be useful.

[ST-DDT]

Did I miss the test for city(number) and city(string)`?

[xDivisionByZerox]

Did I miss the test for city(number) and city(string)`?

I didn't miss them, they are just not as trivial as checking if the return value exists in a predefined array^^

I'm still working on this from time to time. Should I convert this to a draft and reopen it when I'm done with the tests?

[ST-DDT]

Could you please extract the tests for the other address methods into a separate PR?

[xDivisionByZerox]

So why do the helpers tests fail now?

[Shinigami92]

So why do the helpers tests fail now?

Seems like some seeded values need to be updated

[xDivisionByZerox]

Yo, could it be that the dates generated by us break the test if they run on machines in different timezones? All tests pass on my end but fail here. The logs show expected date values 2012-02-01T23:00:00.000Z instead of 2012-02-02T00:00:00.000Z.
My timezone is UTC+1 without daylight saving times and UTC+2 with daylight saving times included.

[xDivisionByZerox]

Nvm we expect any date in helpers.spec. But why can they fail in this case?

[xDivisionByZerox]

I don't get this test

[ST-DDT]

@xDivisionByZerox I reran the pipeline and now its fixed. Looks like a temporarily codecov server issue. All green now.

[xDivisionByZerox]

@Shinigami92 can you have a look at the error in address.nearbyGPSCoordinate (since you wrote the test for it)? I don't get how changing a depreciation message leads to this test failing.

[Shinigami92]

@Shinigami92 can you have a look at the error in address.nearbyGPSCoordinate (since you wrote the test for it)? I don't get how changing a depreciation message leads to this test failing.

Yeah I see, the seed for the execution of the nearbyGPSCoordinate check changed due to that the execution order of the tests changed because you added the city test above it.
It is not your fault! The altered seed just now shows that we have an expectation issue for the nearbyGPSCoordinate check.

@ST-DDT and I working on it now and try to solve it. => #876

[ST-DDT]

Superseded by #948