Revert "feat(rome_js_parser, rome_js_formatter): import attribute (#4359)"

[ematipico]

This reverts commit 0f04d8c.

Summary

Test Plan

Changelog

• The PR requires a changelog line

Documentation

• The PR requires documentation
• I will create a new PR to update the documentation

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for docs-rometools canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	4eaea6d
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-rometools/deploys/6475bca15f65b10008aa7f6b

[github-actions]

Parser conformance results on ubuntu-latest

js/262

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	48863	48863	0
Passed	47810	47810	0
Failed	1053	1053	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	97.84%	97.84%	0.00%

jsx/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	40	40	0
Passed	37	37	0
Failed	3	3	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	92.50%	92.50%	0.00%

symbols/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	6212	6212	0
Passed	1763	1763	0
Failed	4449	4449	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	28.38%	28.38%	0.00%

ts/babel

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	639	639	0
Passed	573	573	0
Failed	66	66	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	89.67%	89.67%	0.00%

ts/microsoft

Test result	main count	This PR count	Difference
Total	17224	17224	0
Passed	13121	13121	0
Failed	4103	4103	0
Panics	0	0	0
Coverage	76.18%	76.18%	0.00%

[ematipico]

@denbezrukov @Conaclos should we revert the change in the grammar and wait for the major tools first?

[Conaclos]

I have no strong opinions about this. I am wondering: could we support both for transitional purpose?

[ematipico]

I will update the PR with both grammars

[ematipico]

@rome/core-contributors

Please check my latest commit. I decided to keep the change to a minimum, without adding new nodes and changes to the semantics.

I think as a temporary solution it could work until we will change to the new grammar for good. What do you think?

[denbezrukov]

Look good to me👍🏽👍🏽
I was wondering that the previous name "ImportAttribute" was better than "Assertion".
But I'm ok with both names:)