✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	84292d0
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/fakerjs/deploys/6861a1f82630b10008313ab2
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-3436.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 project configuration.

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.97%. Comparing base (c7086b2) to head (84292d0).
Report is 1 commits behind head on next.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             next    #3436   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.97%   99.97%           
=======================================
  Files        2880     2880           
  Lines      220510   220510           
  Branches      952      952           
=======================================
  Hits       220457   220457           
  Misses         53       53           

What if we just move all require(*)-cjs calls into .spec.cts files. That way we can more safely use the require-nodejs keyword and ensure that it really works.

What do you mean by "ensure that it really works"? Why does it not work right now? 🤔

Before this PR, we used require in a normal ts file which gets processed by vitest/vite and therefore potentially gets optimized (not sure if this really happens!)
When we now use .cts instead, we ensure that the file is running in pure common-js context.
https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/3436/files#diff-f8cd4ea46aecbba86ee9cba1a851bca523aca5e63bf9fa1866e3604a9d2dec26L9

But not only this, when we will remove cjs support in v10, we could ensure this way at least for newer versions of nodejs, that it still works with their new require(esm) nodejs.org/api/modules.html#loading-ecmascript-modules-using-require

I don't see how moving the test in a separate file ensures this behavior. As far as I can tell this would require our code base to use explicit *.m(t|j)s file extensions, which is not the case right now. Am I missing something? Could you elaborate on this?

No, we wont need to ship .mjs files, because everything is controlled be package.json's "type": "module" and therefore the hole package will get consumed as pure esm package.
In combination with NodeJS's new require(esm), this finally get solved. And our .spec.cts file can cover that.

@xDivisionByZerox in the future (v10) we might need to run this .spec.cts test with Node v20.17+ and the --experimental-require-module or Node v23+
(see https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#loading-ecmascript-modules-using-require and open the History)

And then we need to switch the required calls to depend on v10's esm bundled code

- require('../dist/index.cjs')
+ require('../dist/index.js')

- require(`../dist/locale/${locale}.cjs`)
+ require(`../dist/locale/${locale}.js`)

@xDivisionByZerox just an info, but #3540 (comment) fails with node 18
But this PR here would also still run with node 18, because it actively still tests it with native cjs support and does not fake a require inside an esm file

Do you still wont like this cts test file change?