Replace specific error message check with error code check

[TheAhmir]

The challenge does not specify that a specific error message should be thrown and requiring one might unintentionally hint at the solution. This change updates the test to check for an error code instead, allowing users more flexibility in how they implement error handling while still ensuring correctness.

[github-actions]

This PR touches files which potentially affect the outcome of the tests of an exercise. This will cause all students' solutions to affected exercises to be re-tested.

If this PR does not affect the result of the test (or, for example, adds an edge case that is not worth rerunning all tests for), please add the following to the merge-commit message which will stops student's tests from re-running. Please copy-paste to avoid typos.

[no important files changed]

For more information, refer to the documentation. If you are unsure whether to add the message or not, please ping @exercism/maintainers-admin in a comment. Thank you!

[keiravillekode]

Tests for collatz-conjecture, connect, robot-name, simple-linked-list, wordy have assert true

[TheAhmir]

I believe either could work and have made the appropriate changes so that this test uses the same approach.

[keiravillekode]

The challenge does not specify that a specific error message should be thrown

Exercism uses a TDD approach, where tests are considered to provide the specification.

The cross-language canonical tests do specify error messages. Each track can choose between checking the specific error message, or not.

Currently, I think the following other tracks check the error message for this exercise.

awk
cairo
coffeescript
dart
elixir
erlang
euphoria
fsharp
java
javascript
perl5
pharo-smalltalk
powershell
pyret
python
raku
red
scheme
sml
tcl
uiua
vimscript
wren
yamlscript

Should we be checking the error message for this particular exercise? I don't mind either way.