fix: brazilian cpf formatter

[juregdev]

Hey, I've stumbled upon a problem while using the package with a brazilian personal document. If I called the format method using an already formatted document, the method would return the following error: 162.605.65011-undefined, because there was a problem with the way that the string.splitAt method was called. I came around this solution.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @juregdev, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical bug in the Brazilian CPF formatting utility. Previously, the format method would fail or produce incorrect results when provided with an already formatted CPF string. The changes introduce a more robust string splitting mechanism within the format function, ensuring that the utility can gracefully handle various input formats and consistently produce the correct output. A new test case has been included to validate this improved behavior.

Highlights

• Bug Fix: Resolved an issue in the Brazilian CPF formatter where calling the format method with an already formatted document would lead to an incorrect output.
• Formatting Logic Update: The strings.splitAt method within the format function has been updated to use fixed indices (3, 6, 9, 11) instead of a dynamic input.length - 2 parameter. This ensures consistent and correct splitting of the CPF string after it has been cleaned.
• New Test Case: A new test case has been added to src/br/cpf.spec.ts to specifically verify that the format method correctly handles and returns an already formatted CPF string without alteration.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

Hey, thanks for this fix! Your change correctly addresses the formatting issue with pre-formatted CPF numbers by using fixed indices for splitting. The new test case is also a great addition to prevent regressions.

I've added a couple of suggestions to further improve the robustness of the format function. One suggestion is to add a length check to handle invalid CPF numbers gracefully, preventing potential runtime errors. The other is to add a corresponding test case for this new validation logic.

Overall, great work on identifying and fixing this bug.