HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
faker-js
faker
TypeScript2022–2026
faker-js / faker

faker

Generate massive amounts of fake data in the browser and node.js

Web Development
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
10Distinct people
10Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
15.5KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Generate massive amounts of fake data in the browser and node.js

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year10 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2022-01-11 20:36:03 UTC to 2026-05-16 12:37:00 UTC.

02462022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 1 submissions, 6 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20242025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC716
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

10 sources
Nzen·May 16, 2026
tl;dr Peter Steinberger shared a product demo for CodexBar [0] with a graph of OpenAI token usage. This graph shows one million spent, prefers gpt-5.5 and spent twenty thousand today. [0] https://github.com/steipete/CodexBar However, I do not see a strong reason to believe that this is his actual, personal usage. It could be all openclaw usage or some subset of openai usage, given that he is inside them. I suspect it is far more likely to be fake data [1] that exercises the graph library in a visually satisfying way. Notice that it has no usage for a 'week' after April 15 (a Wednesday), but picks up a bunch later. As marketing copy it needn't have any basis in reality [2]. I should hope openai would put a procedure in front of their entrepreneur acquisition that prevents accidentally exposing trade secrets [3]. [1] https://github.com/fake
Read the rest
r-js/faker [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/proceduralgeneration/comments/lf2n4... [3] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PostingWhatYouSh...
In OpenClaw Creator Spent $1.3M on OpenAI Tokens in 30 Days
azangru·Oct 9, 2025
Looks to me it will be dead soon if they don't figure out how to handle ESM imports. More and more libraries stop packaging commonjs for their new versions. I've been bitten first by d3, then by graphql-request (now graffle), then by msw, then by faker-js. Faker-js, for god's sake! They write in their docs that since version 10, they are incompatible with Jest [0]. Jest seems to be going the way of Enzyme and dodo. The maintainer of MSW has been screaming for years for people to drop jest [1] [0] - https://github.com/faker-js/faker/blob/428ff3328b4c4b13ec29d... [1] - https://x.com/kettanaito/status/1746165619731382351#m
In The React Foundation
trowawee·Jan 17, 2022
So, a few answers. A) most of the dependencies that Faker has are common with lots of JS projects that I work/have worked on in the last few years. Looking at that dep list[0], I'm familiar with most of them. They're mostly common packages. To some degree, I'm relying on the thousand eyes here. B) In terms of security risk, Faker runs in test suites to generate data and locally on dev machines, sometimes, to populate sample DBs. It lives and runs in managed environments and doesn't get packaged into prod anywhere. The risk profile isn't nonexistent, but it's also not a massive risk. C) I really think we're underrating the amount of work that would required to recreate this project (not uncommon here). Faker can spit out 205 different types of random data in 46 different languages/dialects. Building that is not a two day project (evidenced
Read the rest
in the fact that people have been working on this for years now); making sure you can generate all that data correctly in all those different languages is a non-trivial task; building and maintaining it internally will take dev time and energy and will continue to require that time and energy on an ongoing basis. You're talking about this choice here and in other comments with an air of "silly JS devs, just build this easy thing!". I don't know if it's your intention, but you're coming off dismissive and ignorant. People think about these tradeoffs all the time, and sometimes decide to use packages like this. I think it might behoove you, if you find someone's decision confusing, to start from the position that they are also reasonably competent professionals and see if you can understand why a competent professional might make a different decision than the one that seems obvious to you, rather than assuming that if someone makes a different decision they're stupid and/or incompetent. [0]: https://github.com/faker-js/faker/blob/main/package.json
In Faker.js is now a community controlled project
BoorishBears·Jan 17, 2022
Amazing you wrote this entire comment without taking a second confirm the premise you're so passionately defending... No one took away his ownership. Marak: https://github.com/marak/Faker.js/ https://www.npmjs.com/package/faker Post: https://github.com/faker-js/faker https://www.npmjs.com/package/@faker-js/faker Faker.js is not a trademarked term, so someone made a new Faker.js. In fact multiple people did, and one emerged as the preferred fork: https://twitter.com/faker_js/status/1481918305669627905 - And to be clear, even if NPM goes and replaces his package with this new fork, it wouldn't take away his ownership. Github could do the same... doesn't take away his ownership. His ownership of a Github page is not his ownership of the code. I don't like this rules-lawyering stuff either, yet this is one time where even if you decide to be
Read the rest
purposely inflexible with your understanding of laws/licensing/contracts etc... there's still no issue with how this has been handled.
In Faker.js is now a community controlled project
kemitchell·Jan 17, 2022
If what happened here was mental health, I'm not sure more people is more better, from a security standpoint. If it was strongly linked to workload and maintainers' plight, I'm not sure more scope is, either. If the harm done was time wasted and confusion incurred, I wonder about users who got burned teaming up as a group of eight. In any event, the median count of contributors to an open source project remains one. This team-up doesn't help projects != faker.js. As for scope, I haven't looked at this source in a while. But it seems the strings are still static, in the package: <https://github.com/faker-js/faker/tree/29234378807c414158886...>.
In Faker.js is now a community controlled project
PragmaticPulp·Jan 16, 2022
Only sponsorships tied to the project itself will continue to be tied to the project. This move was sponsored by the co-maintainers of the project. Any sponsorships tied to marak's personal GitHub account were not changed, of course. This is also consistent with the original terms: > During the conversation with Ben, he went over the terms and conditions of the Open Collective with me. > Ben said that simply, "The funding is attached to the project, not the current maintainer." Full details: https://github.com/faker-js/faker/discussions/56#discussionc...
In Faker.js is now a community controlled project

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.