Refactor: update JSDoc for subdomains getter and simplify implementation

[Ayoub-Mabrouk]

• Changed JSDoc return type to specify an array of strings.
• Removed the unnecessary function name from the subdomains getter for better readability.
• Used destructuring to simplify property access and enhance clarity in the code.

[wesleytodd]

While I am usually glad to improve the jsdoc, the rest of this is just style. and cannot be accepted. If you would like to go and make PRs that just update the jsdoc, it is much more likely those will be merged.

[Ayoub-Mabrouk]

While I am usually glad to improve the jsdoc, the rest of this is just style. and cannot be accepted. If you would like to go and make PRs that just update the jsdoc, it is much more likely those will be merged.

Thank you @wesleytodd for your feedback. I believe the changes go beyond being purely stylistic. By using destructuring, the code reduces repetition and improves clarity, while the switch to const ensures immutability and aligns with modern best practices. Additionally, the simplified isIP condition makes the logic easier to follow, and removing the unnecessary named function avoids potential confusion. These adjustments aim to enhance readability, maintainability, and consistency with modern JavaScript standards, which can be beneficial in the long run.

[bjohansebas]

Probably all those style changes can be delegated to neostandard or a similar linter

[wesleytodd]

If they were done as part of adopting a uniform linting config I would happily approve that PR. As it stands, what you describe as improvements are at worst non-goals and at best subjective improvements. I have replied to a few of these things in the other PRs, but will repeat a few reasons here:

using destructuring, the code reduces repetition and improves clarity

Repeating this. twice is not a problem. And as this is subjective, I would actually consider this.hostname repeated a few times to be more clear since it doesn't add an unnecessary rename to understand when reading the code. Subjective means "style".

the switch to const ensures immutability and aligns with modern best practices

The code is well contained and not changed often, this is a subjective "improvement" with no other impact. Hence "style".

removing the unnecessary named function avoids potential confusion

Named functions are critical for both error debugging and performance investigations. We should be adding names where they are missing, not removing them.