Modify no-restricted-globals to allow providing optional custom messages

[dryajov]

@not-an-aardvark @platinumazure

This is a continuation of a new rule proposal and subsequent discussion initially started here - #8229

Please describe what the rule should do:
no-restricted-globals allows to prevent the use of certain globals, but it doesn't allow providing custom messages that would explain why the usage is being prevented.

What category of rule is this? (place an "X" next to just one item)

[x] Enforces code style
[x] Warns about a potential error
[x] Suggests an alternate way of doing something
[ ] Other (please specify:)

Provide 2-3 code examples that this rule will warn about:

// should warn/error with an explanation on use of window and suggest usage of self instead
if (window.crypto && window.crypto.getRandomValues) {
    // Modern browsers
    Rand.prototype._rand = function _rand(n) {
      var arr = new Uint8Array(n);
      window.crypto.getRandomValues(arr);
      return arr;
    };
  } else if (window.msCrypto && window.msCrypto.getRandomValues) {
    // IE
    Rand.prototype._rand = function _rand(n) {
      var arr = new Uint8Array(n);
      window.msCrypto.getRandomValues(arr);
      return arr;
    };
  } else {
    // Old junk
    Rand.prototype._rand = function() {
      throw new Error('Not implemented yet');
    };
  }

===============

// should not warn/error on the usage of self
if (self.crypto && self.crypto.getRandomValues) {
    // Modern browsers
    Rand.prototype._rand = function _rand(n) {
      var arr = new Uint8Array(n);
      self.crypto.getRandomValues(arr);
      return arr;
    };
  } else if (self.msCrypto && self.msCrypto.getRandomValues) {
    // IE
    Rand.prototype._rand = function _rand(n) {
      var arr = new Uint8Array(n);
      self.msCrypto.getRandomValues(arr);
      return arr;
    };
  } else {
    // Old junk
    Rand.prototype._rand = function() {
      throw new Error('Not implemented yet');
    };
  }

[platinumazure]

Thanks for the rule suggestion! I'll champion this.

[dryajov]

Thanks @platinumazure!

[ilyavolodin]

@dryajov Could you provide a schema of what you think the options should look like with this change?

[not-an-aardvark]

@platinumazure This has three 👍s from the team -- marking as accepted.

[platinumazure]

@ilyavolodin Missed your question about proposed schema for this rule, sorry. I would want to do something similar to what we have in no-restricted-syntax. Maybe something like this:

        schema: {
            type: "array",
            items: [{
                oneOf: [
                    {
                        type: "string"
                    },
                    {
                        type: "object",
                        properties: {
                            global: { type: "string" },
                            message: { type: "string" }
                        },
                        required: ["global"],
                        additionalProperties: false
                    }
                ]
            }],
            uniqueItems: true,
            minItems: 0
        }

[platinumazure]

Working on this.