test: add coverage for _exceptionWithHostPort

[SeokhunEom]

Add test case for util._exceptionWithHostPort function to verify proper error object creation with correct properties and message formatting.

Before this PR

Files	Tracked lines	Covered	Partial	Missed	Coverage %
util.js	543	532	0	11	97.97%

After this PR

Files	Tracked lines	Covered	Partial	Missed	Coverage %
util.js	543	543	0	0	100.00%

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.99%. Comparing base (3ffc3d7) to head (76ea289).
⚠️ Report is 82 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #59757      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.94%   89.99%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         667      667              
  Lines      196782   196813      +31     
  Branches    38416    38425       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits       176997   177115     +118     
+ Misses      12228    12115     -113     
- Partials     7557     7583      +26     

see 35 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 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.

[nodejs-github-bot]

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/69134/

[BridgeAR]

The method actually seems to be unused as far as I can tell and that is the reason it is not covered by tests. I believe we should in fact just remove the code instead.

Testing internals like this is actually mostly not ideal, especially due to situations like these. It would become even more difficult to detect that code is in fact not used.

[SeokhunEom]

The method actually seems to be unused as far as I can tell and that is the reason it is not covered by tests. I believe we should in fact just remove the code instead.

Testing internals like this is actually mostly not ideal, especially due to situations like these. It would become even more difficult to detect that code is in fact not used.

Thanks for your feedback.

As you said testing dead code isn't ideal. 
But I found _exceptionWithHostPort is referenced in _errnoException, but it appears to be a bug.
It seems _errnoException should be referencing itself in Error.captureStackTrace, not _exceptionWithHostPort.

I'll make a new PR to fix the bug and then remove the function as you suggested.

• Quick question: We don't need a deprecation cycle for an internal (_) function like this, do we? Just wanted to be sure.

Let me know what you think of this plan. If it sounds good, I'll make a new PR for it.