consecutive_stopifnot_linter should include assert_that (and hence be renamed)

[MichaelChirico]

Similar reasoning for consecutive_stopifnot_linter() applies for using assert_that(); assert_that(); assert_that(); unless a message is specified, it's better to use the ... and condense to one assert_that() call.

This will entail a deprecation cycle for consecutive_stopifnot_linter(), so let's align on a name before continuing.

I think consecutive_assertion_linter() fits well, but differs from conjunct_test_linter() (which also covers assert_that() and stopifnot()).

consecutive_test_linter() sounds more like it would apply to testthat functions, so I'm not sold on it.

[IndrajeetPatil]

I'd also vote for consecutive_assertion_linter()!

[AshesITR]

I'm not too worried about renaming since assert_that() is basically stopifnot(all(...)).

I remember some discussion wrt coonjunct_assertion_linter() as a potential name for conjunct_test_linter(), but can't remember why we settled on a different name.