zlib: alter wrong argument number error message

[amarchino]

The ZCtx::Init function presents a standard CHECK to handle the
argument number. The correct number of arguments as of now is 7.

The CHECK usage follows the standard usage in the node C++ code, yet
this is the only instance where the error message is long enough so as
to be split in two lines. The macro CHECK displays this error message
incorrectly.

The fix revolves around a copy of the macro, injected in the point of
code where the previous CHECK was residing; it formats the message in
the same way the macro would have and cleanly exits the execution.

Fixes: #16987

Checklist

• make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• commit message follows commit guidelines

Notes:

• Commit message guidelines followed, yet core-validate-commit fails due to absence of PR-URL and reviewer (might it be acceptable in opening the pull request?)
• I was not able to create a test for the code correction. I'd like to ask for support in how to create a test case.

I remain at disposal for every problem that maight arise.
Thanks!

[tniessen]

Thank you for your contribution, @amarchino! 😃

I won't stand in the way, but to be honest, I am not sure whether the relatively small improvement in readability of a debugging message that should barely ever be visible to users justifies the added complexity. Plus, there are many other places in core which use the same or similar ways to include custom messages in assertions.

[amarchino]

I am, for the most part, in agreement with Your point, @tniessen.
This pull request was done as a (long time due) correction for a typo found some time ago.
If the added complexity introduces is not worth the slight improvement, the pull request (and arguably the referenced issue) should be closed with no damage incurred.
I defer to You for the evaluation, and remain at disposal.

Thanks!

[tniessen]

cc @addaleax based on the discussion in #16987.

[addaleax]

I don’t think I have anything to add to @tniessen’s reply here. :)

[tniessen]

Thanks Anna. I am closing this based on the previous discussion. Thank you for your contribution, @amarchino, we are looking forward to more!

[amarchino]

Thanks to all af You for the attention and time You spent!