fix: allow for both linear and quadratic dissipation functions with SpectralSplit

[CusiniM]

There was an hardcoded preprocessor variiable that forced the computation of the degradation function for the SpectralSplit to only be valid for a linear dissipation function. This PR removes that ifdef and makes both options available.

Because of the way the model is currently used I had to come up with a mixed solution. The selection is done statically for the phase field damage kernels but dynamically for the smallStrainUpdate. It's fairly easy to template the full damage model but I want to have a chat with @frankfeifan about the formulation and what degradation/dissipation functions combinations are actually valid.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 18.44660% with 84 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 55.74%. Comparing base (94a0e86) to head (0f7b24d). Report is 4 commits behind head on develop.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...csSolvers/simplePDE/PhaseFieldDamageFEMKernels.hpp	0.00%	57 Missing :warning:
...reComponents/constitutive/solid/DamageSpectral.hpp	53.57%	13 Missing :warning:
...s/physicsSolvers/simplePDE/PhaseFieldDamageFEM.cpp	0.00%	9 Missing :warning:
src/coreComponents/constitutive/solid/Damage.hpp	0.00%	4 Missing :warning:
...coreComponents/constitutive/solid/DamageVolDev.hpp	0.00%	1 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #3209 +/- ## =========================================== - Coverage 55.75% 55.74% -0.01% =========================================== Files 1041 1041 Lines 88534 88551 +17 =========================================== + Hits 49358 49366 +8 - Misses 39176 39185 +9 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.