docs: fix missing eslint and prettier in exclude default config

[kimulaco]

Description

Thanks for the great testing framework!

I found a mismatch between docs and code for the default exclude config.

The current documentation is missing eslint and prettier in the default exclude patterns. This PR updates the documentation to match the actual implementation.

Reference to actual implementation:
https://github.com/vitest-dev/vitest/blob/v3.0.4/packages/vitest/src/defaults.ts#L13-L19

Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following:

• It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. If the feature is substantial or introduces breaking changes without a discussion, PR might be closed.
• Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.
• Please, don't make changes to pnpm-lock.yaml unless you introduce a new test example.

Tests

• Run the tests with pnpm test:ci.

Documentation

• If you introduce new functionality, document it. You can run documentation with pnpm run docs command.

Changesets

• Changes in changelog are generated from PR name. Please, make sure that it explains your changes in an understandable manner. Please, prefix changeset messages with feat:, fix:, perf:, docs:, or chore:.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for vitest-dev ready!

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	96a5fab
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/vitest-dev/deploys/6794ea3fd4ba17000831f019
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-7360--vitest-dev.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[AriPerkkio]

Thanks, looks good.

(Though it doesn't make sense that our test.exclude has patterns like eslint.config.* as exclusion, when default test.include is ['**/*.{test,spec}.?(c|m)[jt]s?(x)'].)

[kimulaco]

@AriPerkkio Thanks for the review!

Indeed, we should probably reconsider these default test.exclude patterns.

[AriPerkkio]

Clean up for the test.exclude will be done in #6287.