[Kart03]

Context

A request blocked by network.restrictedAddresses fails with an Error whose message is NETERR: getaddrinfo ENOTFOUND <host>, the same wording as a real DNS failure, but with no code. A real DNS failure from Node carries code: 'ENOTFOUND'. Consumers that name or group errors by code therefore see a bare Error for blocked addresses and can't treat them like other host-not-found failures.

Summary of the change

The error is now built in one place, restrictedAddressError(hostname) in lib/requester/core.js, and sets code = 'ENOTFOUND'. It replaces the five places that built it by hand: the pre-request hostname check in requester.js, the two DNS lookup paths, the *.localhost check, and the redirect listener. The message is unchanged, so anything matching on it keeps working.

I used ENOTFOUND rather than a new code so the error matches what its message already says and exposes nothing new about why the request was blocked.

Breaking changes

None. error.code goes from undefined to 'ENOTFOUND' on these errors only. Code that checks error.code === undefined to spot blocked addresses would change. Not checked for in dependents.

Dependencies

None.

Test plan

	Result
npx mocha test/unit/requester-core.test.js	101 passing
npm run test-integration	passes, including the new code assertion on a blocked address

The new assertions are on existing tests: the redirect listener (unit) and a request to a restricted IP (integration). Not checked: lint. The repo's ESLint config conflicts with a parent config in the worktree I ran it from.

Additional notes

Changelog entry added under unreleased.

Generated with Claude Code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 77.84%. Comparing base (6b4c942) to head (7cb0d83).

❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (34.09%) is below the target coverage (35.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1572      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    77.72%   77.84%   +0.11%     
===========================================
  Files           51       51              
  Lines         4369     4373       +4     
  Branches      1234     1234              
===========================================
+ Hits          3396     3404       +8     
+ Misses         730      725       -5     
- Partials       243      244       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	69.01% <90.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
legacy	34.09% <20.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unit	47.29% <70.00%> (+0.27%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[appurva21]

I don’t think we should make this change.

• A blocked address and a real DNS failure are different failures, and giving both code: 'ENOTFOUND' could be misleading for certain consumers.
• The change also only partly matches Node: Node’s DNS error has no NETERR: prefix and carries errno, syscall and hostname, which this error lacks, and Node never returns ENOTFOUND for an IP literal. The NETERR: prefix already lets consumers tell blocked requests apart, so it’s up to each consumer to decide how to handle them.

[Kart03]

Agreed, thanks. A blocked address isn't a DNS failure, and the NETERR: prefix already marks it. Closing this; I'll classify it on our side using that prefix.