feat(internet): add jwt method

[eLoyyyyy]

Closes #1282

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	5c3f33d255f5ec859862515a63ad6afec2ded77a
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/fakerjs/deploys/6718f231d852a600084e2d8b
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2936.fakerjs.dev
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.37931% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 99.95%. Comparing base (48931a5) to head (5c3f33d). Report is 1 commits behind head on next.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/internal/base64.ts	37.50%	5 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #2936      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.96%   99.95%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2796     2797       +1     
  Lines      216704   216762      +58     
  Branches      953      578     -375     
==========================================
+ Hits       216628   216672      +44     
- Misses         76       90      +14     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/definitions/internet.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/locales/base/internet/index.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/locales/base/internet/jwt_algorithm.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/modules/internet/index.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/internal/base64.ts	33.33% <37.50%> (+3.33%)	:arrow_up:

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[Shinigami92]

is this up for review? or should I wait a bit?

[xDivisionByZerox]

Discussion point has been removed for being off topic

---

@eLoyyyyy the test snapshots as well as some formatting needs to be updated. You can run pnpm run preflight to run CI locally before committing. That way you don't have to wait for results from CI. Alternativly, have a look at our CONTRIBUTING Guidelines for more information on how to fix common problems.

[ST-DDT]

The formatting seems to be off in the documentation:

I dont see the problem. What would you expect?

[eLoyyyyy]

@eLoyyyyy the test snapshots as well as some formatting needs to be updated. You can run pnpm run preflight to run CI locally before committing. That way you don't have to wait for results from CI. Alternativly, have a look at our CONTRIBUTING Guidelines for more information on how to fix common problems.

Updated the test snapshots. My bad for not running preflight before pushing code.

[xDivisionByZerox]

I dont see the problem. What would you expect?

The current documentation show this:

function jwt(
    options: {
      header?: Record<string, unknown>;
      payload?: Record<string, unknown>;
      refDate?: string | Date | number;
    } = {}
  ): string;
faker.internet.jwt() //...

I would expect standardized prettier formatting (look at the whitespaces):

function jwt(
  options: {
    header?: Record<string, unknown>;
    payload?: Record<string, unknown>;
    refDate?: string | Date | number;
  } = {}
): string;
faker.internet.jwt() //...

---

I can see this on other functions as well (example: internet.mac(), number.bigInt()). Because of that I dismiss this topic from this PR and put it in our meeting notes.

[ST-DDT]

@eLoyyyyy Could you please fix the merge conflicts?

[ST-DDT]

@xDivisionByZerox Could you please review this PR (or dismiss your previous one)?

[ST-DDT]

Thank you for you contribution. ❤️

This feature will be available in the upcoming v9.1 release of faker.