✨ Move to explicit minLength/maxLength constraints on array

[dubzzz]

Before this PR, defining constraints on the size of an array required to use one of the following signatures:

• fc.array(arb, maxLength)
• fc.array(arb, minLength, maxLength)

This PR depreciates those signatures for another one fc.array(arb, {minLength, maxLength}) which is more explicit.

The reasons behind this change are:

1. when seeing a call like fc.array(arb, 10) it was difficult to understand the meaning of the second argument: is is for the max? for the min?
2. no signature to only specify a min length, specifying a min required the user to also specify a max
3. difficult to use this kind of signature with fc.set, fc.uint32array... or even worst fc.object

The PR comes with a codemod to convert automatically implicit minLength and maxLength to the newly added object expression syntax.

Related to #89

In a nutshell

✔️ New feature
❌ Fix an issue
❌ Documentation improvement
❌ Other: please explain

(✔️: yes, ❌: no)

Potential impacts

Generated values impact:

• fc.func
• fc.lorem

[codesandbox-ci]

This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.

To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.

Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 68e57dc:

Sandbox	Source
Vanilla	Configuration
dubzzz/fast-check: example	Configuration

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 96.084% when pulling f4755c6 on explicit-min-max-array into 1778049 on master.

[dubzzz]

Related to #992