feat(isMobilePhone): Add South Sudan Locale And Prefix(SS)

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!

[cheboi]

added validation and test for isMobile code Locale for (SS).
reference file: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000F90002PDFE.pdf

Checklist

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage 👍

Coverage data is based on head (6dcd6fb) compared to base (c19777a).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #2084 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 104 104 Lines 2328 2328 Branches 584 584 =========================================
Hits 2328 2328 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isMobilePhone.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ezkemboi]

LGTM

[pano9000]

Hello all,

After reading the provided reference, I think the RegExp is too permissive currently and would match invalid phone numbers as well.

According to the reference above, there are only 4 valid "mobile access codes":

• 91
• 92
• 95
• 97

So the RegExp should actually check for these as well.
Currently it only checks for that first 9, so an invalid number like the following would match as valid;
+211932345678 (invalid, because mobile access code 93 does not exist)

Not an expert on South Sudan though, so please correct me if I am wrong.

However, If I am right, the corrected RegExp in my opinion should look like this:

/^(\+?211|0)(9[1257])\d{7}$/

Examples:

Valid:
+211911234567
+211921234567
+211951234567
+211971234567

Invalid:
+211981234567
+211931234567
+211901234567
+211991234567

[cheboi]

Hello,
Thank you @pano9000, I will check on that

[pano9000]

@rubiin could you kindly update the labels, seeing that this still needs some changes?

[pano9000]

@cheboi thank you for the update!
@rubiin thanks, I think we can now remove the "needs-update" label now

(@profnandaa would it be possible for me to gain rights to add/remove labels for the issues/PRs? I'd be glad to help with that. let me know, what the process for that would like like)

[profnandaa]

LGTM, thanks for your contrib! 🎉

[profnandaa]

@pano9000 -- sure, I've sent you an invite, let me know if you've seen it. Thanks for the help!