refactor(locale): remove discontinued credit card issuer "maestro"

[xDivisionByZerox]

Description

Removes the discontinued credit card issue "maestro" as described in #2350 (comment).

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c73b905
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/fakerjs/deploys/661d9210b87704000872b9cd

[xDivisionByZerox]

Please tell me if this is considered breaking. Afterwards I can set the correct labels/title/milestone (and add a migration snippet).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.96%. Comparing base (e53dd37) to head (89311b3).

❗ Current head 89311b3 differs from pull request most recent head c73b905. Consider uploading reports for the commit c73b905 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             next    #2803   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.95%   99.96%           
=======================================
  Files        2966     2969    +3     
  Lines      212579   212530   -49     
  Branches      948      949    +1     
=======================================
- Hits       212490   212445   -45     
+ Misses         89       85    -4     

Files	Coverage Δ
src/locales/el/finance/credit_card/index.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/locales/en/finance/credit_card/index.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 29 files with indirect coverage changes

[ST-DDT]

Please tell me if this is considered breaking. Afterwards I can set the correct labels/title/milestone (and add a migration snippet).

I would consider it breaking because a "well known value" will stop working even if the type does not cover it.

---

See also #2720

• refactor(finance)!: rewrite creditCardNumber to work with issuer enum #2720

[ST-DDT]

Are the other credit card issuers valid?

[xDivisionByZerox]

Are the other credit card issuers valid?

This is not supposed to be a fix for #2350, as removing a discontinued issue is different from fixing invalid patterns, based on an issue, IMO.

What I want to say is: I did not check the other pattern as I would do so in a different PR (which is not breaking as it is a fix)

[matthewmayer]

Please tell me if this is considered breaking. Afterwards I can set the correct labels/title/milestone (and add a migration snippet).

I would consider it breaking because a "well known value" will stop working even if the type does not cover it.

---

See also #2720

• refactor(finance)!: rewrite creditCardNumber to work with issuer enum #2720

I think it's worth a quick mention in the migration guide to note that;

• creditCardNumber with no options will never return maestro card numbers any more
• creditCardNumber({issuer:"maestro"}) will fall back to returning a number from a random issuer.

[ST-DDT]

• creditCardNumber({issuer:"maestro"}) will fall back to returning a number from a random issuer.

And any other method that would have an option removed/renamed would work as well.
Only in this case we dont even get a ts error.
IMO MaestroCreditCard != random CreditCard

Just for clarification: I dont require a migration guide, if #2720 is merged after this before any release.

[matthewmayer]

for reference we didn't consider #2344 breaking