feat(helpers): add new faker.helpers.weightedArrayElement

[matthewmayer]

Split from #1637

Adds a new function faker.helpers.weightedArrayElement which allows you
to select a random element from an array, but weighted more to certain
elements than others. This will be useful for refactoring name patterns,
where for example you might want to have

• FirstName Surname chosen 90% of the time and
• FirstName Surname Suffix chosen 10% of the time

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1654 (c0ba03b) into next (2ac5db9) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 93.87%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #1654      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.64%   99.64%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2245     2245              
  Lines      240269   240318      +49     
  Branches     1069     1078       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits       239407   239453      +46     
- Misses        841      844       +3     
  Partials       21       21              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/modules/helpers/index.ts	98.86% <93.87%> (-0.30%)	⬇️

[ST-DDT]

I think we should swap the weight and the value (weight first), because the weight is usually much shorter than the value making it easier to spot in longer lists. What do you/the others think?

[
  [ 5, 'sunny' ],
  [ 4, 'rainy' ],
  [ 1, 'extremely hazardous blizard storm clouds' ]
]

[
  [ 'sunny', 5 ],
  [ 'rainy', 4 ],
  [ 'extremely hazardous blizard storm clouds', 1 ]
]

[ST-DDT]

Should we allow weight zero for temporarily disabled or dynamically weighted items or should we expect the user to remove it before passing it to our method?

[matthewmayer]

Should we allow weight zero for temporarily disabled or dynamically weighted items or should we expect the user to remove it before passing it to our method?

i think allowing zeroes causes more confusion, for example what would you expect to happen if your array had three items, all with weight zero?

[Shinigami92]

Should we allow weight zero for temporarily disabled or dynamically weighted items or should we expect the user to remove it before passing it to our method?

i think allowing zeroes causes more confusion, for example what would you expect to happen if your array had three items, all with weight zero?

All have same chance
so 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3

[matthewmayer]

Should we allow weight zero for temporarily disabled or dynamically weighted items or should we expect the user to remove it before passing it to our method?

i think allowing zeroes causes more confusion, for example what would you expect to happen if your array had three items, all with weight zero?

All have same chance so 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3

Intuitively yes, but that would require some extra code to deal with that case, which i think adds more complexity and chance for bugs?

[matthewmayer]

I note that faker.helpers.float defaults to a precision of 0.01, which means this is biased for small percentages. What's the cleanest way to request the max precision for the random float?

[ST-DDT]

I note that faker.helpers.float defaults to a precision of 0.01, which means this is biased for small percentages. What's the cleanest way to request the max precision for the random float?

Maybe open a new issue for that (max precision float)?

[ST-DDT]

The linter now complains about this.