quic: add proper error codes & messages for QUIC failures

[pimterry]

This wraps QUIC errors, providing useful error codes and messages for the defined error code cases from both OpenSSL and ngtcp2.

Before this, QUIC errors looked like:

// Application error with an explicit reason string:
Error [ERR_QUIC_APPLICATION_ERROR]: A QUIC application error occurred. 42n [client shutdown]
    at [kFinishClose] (node:internal/quic/quic:3505:22)
    at Session.onSessionClose (node:internal/quic/quic:679:31) {
  code: 'ERR_QUIC_APPLICATION_ERROR'
}

// All our internal errors:
Error [ERR_QUIC_TRANSPORT_ERROR]: A QUIC transport error occurred. 296n [undefined]
    at [kFinishClose] (node:internal/quic/quic:3502:22)
    at Session.onSessionClose (node:internal/quic/quic:679:31) {
  code: 'ERR_QUIC_TRANSPORT_ERROR'
}

Now they look like:

Error [ERR_QUIC_APPLICATION_ERROR]: QUIC application error 42: client shutdown
    at makeQuicError (node:internal/quic/quic:999:15)
    at [kFinishClose] (node:internal/quic/quic:3552:22)
    at Session.onSessionClose (node:internal/quic/quic:681:31) {
  code: 'ERR_QUIC_APPLICATION_ERROR',
  errorCode: 42n,
  type: 'application',
  reason: 'client shutdown'
}

Error [ERR_QUIC_TRANSPORT_ERROR]: QUIC transport error handshake failure (296)
    at makeQuicError (node:internal/quic/quic:988:15)
    at [kFinishClose] (node:internal/quic/quic:3534:22)
    at Session.onSessionClose (node:internal/quic/quic:681:31) {
  code: 'ERR_QUIC_TRANSPORT_ERROR',
  errorCode: 296n,
  type: 'transport',
  errorName: 'handshake failure'
}

[nodejs-github-bot]

Review requested:

• @nodejs/quic

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.05%. Comparing base (3b19867) to head (60b6e3b).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #63198      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.68%   90.05%   -1.63%     
==========================================
  Files         361      714     +353     
  Lines      156230   225775   +69545     
  Branches    24021    42721   +18700     
==========================================
+ Hits       143232   203315   +60083     
- Misses      12729    14233    +1504     
- Partials      269     8227    +7958     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/internal/errors.js	97.64% <ø> (+4.03%)	⬆️
lib/internal/quic/quic.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 473 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.

[Ethan-Arrowood]

this is a great change.

[Ethan-Arrowood]

this is a great change.

[pimterry]

Updated to use bindingdata, rebased and force pushed because we need to update the test from #63193 (just merged) as well since that asserted on the error message.

[metcoder95]

lgtm

[Qard]

Is there some reason you're undid the use of the existing core errors system? Shouldn't we be keeping that?

[Qard]

Should we not keep the same error construction mechanism as the others? We lose a bunch of things by not using that. Not sure we should be taking these out of the global errors set.

[pimterry]

This was a suggestion here, changed here.

We still use standard error codes, but we use a single QuicError class instead of the standard construction of per-code error classes: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/api/quic.md#class-quicerror. This error class is used by users as well to control QUIC error behaviour, and this approach gives us consistent errors for every kind of failure at the protocol level. I don't feel strongly about it myself, but it seemed like a reasonable suggestion and having a single QUIC error class is tidy.

What do we lose by not using the standard error mechanism vs this setup?