[v6.x backport] assert.fail() accept a single argument or two arguments

[Trott]

Backport of #12293

First commit:

assert.fail() has two possible function signatures, both of which are
not intuitive. It virtually guarantees that people who try to use
assert.fail() without carefully reading the docs will end up using it
incorrectly.

This change maintains backwards compatibility with the two valid uses
(arguments 1 2 and 4 supplied but argument 3 falsy, and argument 3
supplied but arguments 1 2 and 4 all falsy) but also adds the far more
intuitive first-argument-only and first-two-arguments-only
possibilities.

assert.fail('boom');
// AssertionError: boom

assert.fail('a', 'b');
// AssertionError: 'a' != 'b'

Second commit: Remove lint rule that flags use of assert.fail() with a single argument.

Third commit: Remove common.fail() in tests since assert.fail() with a single argument works as expected.

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)

[MylesBorins]

is this semver-minor? original was semver-major

[MylesBorins]

ping @Trott

[Trott]

@MylesBorins Original was labeled semver-major but I argued in #12293 (comment) that it was semver-minor. I argued in #12293 (comment) for backporting (and again that it wasn't really semver major). That comment got a 👍 from @addaleax @refack, and @ljharb. Subsequently, @sam-github and @BridgeAR endorsed backporting. @gibfahn also commented that it should go on v6.x., although it's not clear to me that they realized it was labeled semver-major.

I'm not seeing anyone arguing that it is semver major or that it shouldn't be backported with the possible exception of @refack.

[gibfahn]

To clarify, assuming you're talking about #12293 (comment), I was just saying that if this is backported to v6.x, then it should come with #12343.

Given #12293 (comment) though, I would say that IMO this isn't semver-major in practice. It's a notable change that we should call out, but I don't think it's going to break anyone.

[MylesBorins]

@Trott would you be able to rebase and include #12343?

[Trott]

Rebase: Sure, done.

#12343: Cherry-picked over 4fc1199 and so that's in here now too. Take it out if you want to cherry-pick/land it separate from this PR.

[MylesBorins]

landed in 1213f38...0597d3f