refactor(location)!: zip code state

[Shinigami92]

references #1346 (comment)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1874 (b1b7b7d) into next (fdf7228) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #1874      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.62%   99.61%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2563     2563              
  Lines      243248   243278      +30     
  Branches     1282     1284       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits       242328   242353      +25     
- Misses        893      898       +5     
  Partials       27       27              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/modules/location/index.ts	98.96% <100.00%> (+0.24%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[Shinigami92]

@faker-js/maintainers @faker-js/members Is the current impl good enough? Or should we still throw a FakerError for missing state and make therefore a breaking change for the deprecated zipCodeForState?

[matthewmayer]

I think in general breaking changes happening at the same time as deprecating a method is a bad idea. The point of deprecation is "you have one major version where your existing code will continue to work without changes".

[Shinigami92]

I think in general breaking changes happening at the same time as deprecating a method is a bad idea. The point of deprecation is "you have one major version where your existing code will continue to work without changes".

Beside that: I'm asking because I don't see the need to throw a FakerError instead of doing a fallback 🤷
It just needs to be documented so if someone asks, we can point to the documentation 🙂

[Shinigami92]

There is an issue that can be better identified by merging

• test: separate jsdoc tag tests #1969

first

[xDivisionByZerox]

My comment are non blocking. So feel free to resolve them if you don't think they are important.

[Shinigami92]

To proceed with this, I will merge it for now
We can extract issues or do several PRs like unifying the test variable names