docs,test: use RFC 2606 reserved domains in examples

[nthbotast]

Summary

• replace non-reserved example domains in docs examples with RFC 2606-style reserved TLDs
• update node-test fixtures that previously used google.com
• update type tests that previously used www.nodejs.org as an upstream example

Why

Closes #4866 by avoiding real/public domains in documentation and test examples.

Validation

• npm run test:node-test -- test/node-test/util.js test/node-test/client-dispatch.js
• npx tsd --files test/types/balanced-pool.test-d.ts
• pre-commit lint hook (npm run lint)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.01%. Comparing base (bfeacd0) to head (554aec2).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4869      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.14%   93.01%   -0.13%     
==========================================
  Files         109      112       +3     
  Lines       34254    35157     +903     
==========================================
+ Hits        31905    32701     +796     
- Misses       2349     2456     +107     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mcollina]

lgtm

[mcollina]

did you find all of them? Seems too few.

Can you add some kind of automation on CI to avoid them in the future?

[nthbotast]

Implemented, thanks for the review.\n\nI pushed commit with two follow-ups:\n\n1. Expanded placeholder-domain cleanup in docs examples (replaced remaining non-RFC2606 placeholders in the touched API docs).\n2. Added CI guard test: to fail if those non-RFC2606 placeholders are reintroduced in these docs.\n\nValidation run: and .

[nthbotast]

(Correction for formatting)

Implemented, thanks for the review.

I pushed commit 3fd8bd4 with two follow-ups:

1. Expanded placeholder-domain cleanup in docs examples (replaced remaining non-RFC2606 placeholders in the touched API docs).
2. Added CI guard test: test/node-test/rfc2606-doc-placeholders.js to fail if those non-RFC2606 placeholders are reintroduced in these docs.

Validation run: node --test test/node-test/rfc2606-doc-placeholders.js and git diff --check.

[metcoder95]

I believe this could be better if offloaded into a GHA, on top, maybe iterate over the docs and verify each link, attempting to identify if they are following the RFC-2606 standard

[Uzlopak]

Yeah, somehow gives false sense of security.

[Uzlopak]

May we have some nicer domains?

It now looks kind strange, when i read example.example in the docs. Reads like we didnt where motivated to give some good domain name for our documentation, which is our "business card".

Lets use nodejs.example.and nodejs.test

[nthbotast]

Good point — agreed on readability.\n\nI pushed commit 554aec2 to switch the touched examples from to clearer reserved domains:\n- (majority of examples)\n- (crawling example)\n\nI also updated the placeholder guard test to forbid in these files going forward.\n\nValidation run:\n- \n-

[nthbotast]

(Correction for formatting)

Good point — agreed on readability.

I pushed commit 554aec2 to switch the touched examples from example.example to clearer reserved domains:

• nodejs.example (majority of examples)
• nodejs.test (crawling example)

I also updated the placeholder guard test to forbid example.example in these files going forward.

Validation run:

• node --test test/node-test/rfc2606-doc-placeholders.js
• git diff --check

[Fdawgs]

@nthbotast is an AI bot btw, see the flood of PRs here and on the Fastify repo.