refactor(internet)!: return v4 or v6 ip

[xDivisionByZerox]

Is listed in #1044.

This is a breaking change and should not be merged before the next major release.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #1059 (6718cfd) into next (9c1437d) will increase coverage by 0.01%. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #1059      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.60%   99.62%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2164     2164              
  Lines      236816   236816              
  Branches      999     1004       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits       235888   235917      +29     
+ Misses        906      877      -29     
  Partials       22       22              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/modules/internet/index.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/modules/internet/user-agent.ts	89.41% <0.00%> (+7.67%)	:arrow_up:

[Shinigami92]

I also updated the access to any definition.internet with an optional chaining operator since my IDE was complaining that the property is potentially undefined.

@xDivisionByZerox I would prefer that you extract this into its separate PR But I also never had an issue with that :thinking: Also TypeScript check didn't complain yet :thinking: So is it maybe just your IDE? Did you miss to switch e.g. to the installed TypeScript instead of the embedded IDE TS version? Sometimes that can lead to such issues.

[xDivisionByZerox]

I also updated the access to any definition.internet with an optional chaining operator since my IDE was complaining that the property is potentially undefined.

@xDivisionByZerox I would prefer that you extract this into its separate PR But I also never had an issue with that 🤔 Also TypeScript check didn't complain yet 🤔 So is it maybe just your IDE? Did you miss to switch e.g. to the installed TypeScript instead of the embedded IDE TS version? Sometimes that can lead to such issues.

I have no problems providing an additional PR regarding this topic, so we can focus on the logic changes in this PR.

[xDivisionByZerox]

I did revert the optional chaining. @Shinigami92 @ST-DDT please review again.

[ST-DDT]

I have no problems providing an additional PR regarding this topic, so we can focus on the logic changes in this PR.

IMO there is no need to change it.

• There is no lint warning
• It doesnt make the code more readable or safe.
• Its only for tests