zlib: prevent oversized ArrayBuffer retention in one-shot methods

[Abhirup0]

Fixes: #65600

When one-shot convenience methods (zlib.gzip(), zlib.deflate(),
zlib.brotliCompress(), zlib.zstdCompress(), etc.) complete with a single
output chunk, zlibBufferOnEnd and processChunkSync returned bufs[0],
which was a sub-slice of the 16 KB default _outBuffer. For small outputs,
this retained the full 16,384-byte backing ArrayBuffer.

Because this.close() synchronously frees the native C++ context and
decrements the external memory accounter back to 0, V8 does not observe
external memory pressure or significant JS heap growth. In long-running
processes with comfortable heaps, dead ArrayBuffer allocations accumulated
until the process ran out of memory.

This change:

1. Trims single-chunk one-shot results to exact size with Buffer.from() when
   the chunk is smaller than its backing ArrayBuffer.
2. Releases internal references to _outBuffer, buffers, cb, and
   _writeState on stream completion, error, and close.

[MikeMcC399]

This PR fails many tests.

Please make sure you have read and understood the following documents:

• guide for first-time contributors
• contribution and automation policies
• pull request guide
• AI use policy
• Code of Conduct

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.06%. Comparing base (7b0de5e) to head (bb8cd2a).
⚠️ Report is 14 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/zlib.js	66.66%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #65647   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.05%   90.06%           
=======================================
  Files         754      754           
  Lines      255722   255748   +26     
  Branches    48314    48331   +17     
=======================================
+ Hits       230281   230327   +46     
+ Misses      16555    16538   -17     
+ Partials     8886     8883    -3     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
lib/zlib.js	97.97% <66.66%> (-0.17%)	⬇️

... and 37 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.

[Abhirup0]

Updated the commit to follow commit message line wrapping and DCO sign-off guidelines, updated the test suite to use common.mustSucceed(), and narrowed the implementation cleanly to the single-chunk buffer trimming in zlibBufferOnEnd and processChunkSync. CI checks should now be green.

[MikeMcC399]

@Abhirup0

You have forced-push several changes in the meantime, and CI continues to fail.

Before you submit changes, you should test these locally. See https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/pull-requests.md#step-6-test

[Abhirup0]

Apologies for the noise and multiple CI runs, @MikeMcC399.

The issue with the earlier test was an assumption about Buffer.poolSize: Buffer.from(singleChunk) correctly copies small single-chunk results into Node's shared Buffer pool to release the stream's unpooled _outBuffer, but on current main, Buffer.poolSize was increased to 64 KB (65,536 bytes). The previous test had hardcoded < 16384, which caused the assertion to fail against the 64 KB pool size.

In bb8cd2a, the test was updated to use chunkSize = 128 * 1024 and assert buf.buffer.byteLength < chunkSize alongside buf.buffer.byteLength <= Buffer.poolSize, properly verifying that the 128 KB unpooled allocation is released while respecting Node's shared buffer pool.

Whenever convenient, could CI please be re-run on bb8cd2a? Thank you for your patience and guidance!

[MikeMcC399]

@Abhirup0

The GitHub Actions CI continues to fail.

Did you test this branch locally according to https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/pull-requests.md#step-6-test ?

Which operating system are you testing on?

Are you relying on AI assistance for this PR to make changes and to write comments?