Handle and propagate protocol exceptions in channel interceptors to the calling parent channels

[Ayanda-D]

Proposed Changes

Channel interceptor behaviour rabbit_channel_interceptor allows us to return #amqp_error{}
however there times when we also want to (fail fast) and throw, or exit an amqp_error directly
from the channel interceptor callback. For instance, when using equivalence helpers in custom
interceptor callbacks: rabbit_misc:assert_field_equivalence/4 (see dummy_interceptor).

The rabbit_channel_interceptor does a catch on callback exceptions (at least for undef) and
handles AMQP method and content as normal. At this point, we also want to be able to catch protocol
exceptions and pass on the exit to the calling/parent channel process. Gives us some extensibility
on custom interceptor callbacks in handling and processing some common protocol exceptions.

(Really need this for something we're working on 😬)

Types of Changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to this project?
Put an x in the boxes that apply

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes issue #NNNN)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause an observable behavior change in existing systems)
• Documentation improvements (corrections, new content, etc)
• Cosmetic change (whitespace, formatting, etc)
• Build system and/or CI

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply.
You can also fill these out after creating the PR.
If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask on the mailing list.
We're here to help!
This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document
• I have signed the CA (see https://cla.pivotal.io/sign/rabbitmq)
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• All tests pass locally with my changes
• If relevant, I have added necessary documentation to https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-website
• If relevant, I have added this change to the first version(s) in release-notes that I expect to introduce it

Further Comments

If this is a relatively large or complex change, kick off the discussion by explaining why you chose the solution you did and what alternatives you considered, etc.

[michaelklishin]

I don't see much risk in accepting this, although we touch channel interceptors so rarely that it's also difficult to assess :)

[Ayanda-D]

Cheers :)
🎉

[Ayanda-D]

we also now avoid these crashes on the channel. so thank you from our side, low risk merge goes a long way ☺️
https://gist.github.com/Ayanda-D/038d815a0866412dd3bff1113c3170e9