feat(isPassportNumber): add support for any

[ilyichv]

Add support for any value within isPassportNumber as done for isPostalCode

isPassportNumber("AB1234567", "any")

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)
• References provided in PR (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.71429% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 99.96%. Comparing base (72573b3) to head (2540ebc).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/lib/isPassportNumber.js	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##            master    #2570      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   99.96%   -0.04%     
===========================================
  Files          114      114              
  Lines         2535     2542       +7     
  Branches       641      644       +3     
===========================================
+ Hits          2535     2541       +6     
- Partials         0        1       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[pano9000]

the if statement here is not needed: regex.test returns a boolean.
Why not just directly return that value, instead of manually checking if it is "true-ish" and then returning true?

[ilyichv]

Returning directly the result won't work since it breaks the loop and you want to check if at least one element matches.
I tried to follow the code style of isPostalCode. A better-looking version could be:

if (countryCode === 'any') {
    return Object.values(passportRegexByCountryCode).some(regex => regex.test(normalizedStr));
}

[pano9000]

ahh, of course, you're right – I overlooked that we are in a for loop, my bad!

I do like your new version though :-)

[ilyichv]

I updated the code an then noticed that you're testing node 6 as well and of course it fails. If you agree we can keep the "dirty" version and move on!

[pano9000]

I forgot about the CI testing against Node 6 (which IMHO is useless that it still is done, seeing that it was EOL'ed almost 6 years ago :-()

so yeah, all good to go back with your original version then

[ilyichv]

Yeah, that's a bit weird! I reverted the latest version anyway :)