assert: fix assert.fail with zero arguments

[BridgeAR]

Use a default message in case there is no argument and set actual to undefined (it will show up as a property of the thrown error object). Currently the message would be undefined undefined undefined instead.

Checklist

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

Affected core subsystem(s)

[refack]

Defensive semver-major for error message change 😞

[jasnell]

Please avoid using informal pronouns like you in the docs

[bnoordhuis]

Why is this a rule all of a sudden? I'd have written 'Without arguments, ...' but this hetze against 'you' seems misplaced.

[jasnell]

It's not "all of a sudden". This has been the convention for quite some time.

[jasnell]

As for why, there are many reasons...

Refs: http://www2.ivcc.edu/rambo/tip_formal_writing_voice.htm

[Trott]

If it helps at all, according to our style guide:

• Generally avoid personal pronouns in reference documentation ("I", "you", "we").
  • Pronouns are acceptable in more colloquial documentation, like guides.
  • Use gender-neutral pronouns and mass nouns. Non-comprehensive examples:
    • OK: "they", "their", "them", "folks", "people", "developers", "cats"
    • NOT OK: "his", "hers", "him", "her", "guys", "dudes"

The style guide has had the "generally avoid" part since June 2015 (when it lived in the docs repo where its visibility was unfortunately limited). https://github.com/nodejs/docs/blob/753d262f1530b1aff3c7e46d3c116d810d1698d3/GUIDE.md

It does seem like a "why" for it might be beneficial in the style guide. Maybe @nodejs/documentation can sort out the best reasons. For me, seeing "you" in technical documentation makes me suspicious that it was written carelessly. I immediately wonder if its out of date, inaccurate, contains omissions, etc. That may or may not be a sensible reaction on my part, but there it is.

The other option, of course, would be to change the style guide to say we're perfectly fine with pronouns like "you" etc. in our technical docs.

[addaleax]

I asked for this out loud on Twitter, and a protected account gave the answer of “good documentation informs the reader rather than instructing them”, which actually makes a lot of sense to me. It’s not like all usage of “you” violates that rule, but that it will tend to so seems reasonable.

[BridgeAR]

I personally think it's reasonable not to use you, I just tend to forget about it while writing something as I concentrate more on the code...
It was also not my intention to kick off a discussion about it.

[bnoordhuis]

“good documentation informs the reader rather than instructing them”

That sounds reasonable. As long as it doesn't devolve into endless reams of passive voice.

[refack]

Do we have a "professional" technical writer available? I'm sure between the bunch of us we have a 100man-year of writing experience, but sometimes having a professional go over everything, and also sprucing up the style guide is worth it...

[addition] Just an anecdote, because in Hebrew all verbs and nouns are gendered, the Ministry of education passed a recommendation that all STEM curriculum should be written in female tense, just as an equalizer 🤷‍♂️ (I think it's kind of nice)

[jasnell]

CITGM: https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/895/
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/8894/

[jasnell]

CI failures appear to be unrelated.

[refack]

CI failures appear to be unrelated.

#14015

[refack]

@nodejs/release @lpinca @jasnell @cjihrig @Trott
Originally I marked this semver major but in retrospect it could be considered a bug fix and semver-minor for the addition of "zero or single argument" assert.fail([message]).

AFAICT this PR has only this possibly breaking effect

diff --git a/test/parallel/test-assert-fail.js b/test/parallel/test-assert-fail.js
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ assert.throws(
   common.expectsError({
     code: 'ERR_ASSERTION',
     type: assert.AssertionError,
-    message: 'undefined undefined undefined'
+    message: 'Failed'
   })
 );

@addaleax just run a CitGM on a change that included this (https://ci.nodejs.org/view/Node.js-citgm/job/citgm-smoker/922/) and it's clean.

I'm reversing my position from #12293 (comment) mostly because there were several good and "safe" improvements to assert that are non trivial to port to v8.x, re-including this would save a lot of manual backporting which IMHO is more risky than landing this.