add validations for simple bounds checks

[true-false-maybe]

closes #514

[mattpolzin]

These seem like nice fits, thanks! I haven't looked at this in detail yet, but before I do, what are your thoughts on combining any of these vs. not? Do you think it's likely to be useful to e.g. validate that integer bounds are sane but not validate that other number bounds are sane?

[true-false-maybe]

These seem like nice fits, thanks! I haven't looked at this in detail yet, but before I do, what are your thoughts on combining any of these vs. not? Do you think it's likely to be useful to e.g. validate that integer bounds are sane but not validate that other number bounds are sane?

it didn't really cross my mind tbh. i basically split them just because i thought it was a nice separation of concerns during implementation and testing (and probably reviewing). if you have a specific set of the added validations you want to be combine into one, i'd implement it. 👍

[mattpolzin]

Let's combine the number and integer checks then. Leave the others separate. The integer and number checks operate on the same properties (by name) and are conceptually the same as each other so since I don't see someone wanting to check one but not the other I think it makes sense to combine them.

[true-false-maybe]

combined integer and number checks into one (i kept both test-variants though, as they actually caught a bug while i refactored, so yeah)

[mattpolzin]

Looks good. Thanks!