✨ feat: Add maxLength support to stringMatching

[emilianbold]

Description

This is a weaker implementation as mentioned in #5562 but one which I think is superior to just adding a filter by hand.

Propagating max downstream means we do contain a bit better performance wise though we still need to filter the final result.

Also explored min but that seemed less valuable than containing max better.

Checklist — Don't delete this checklist and make sure you do the following before opening the PR

• The name of my PR follows gitmoji specification
• My PR references one of several related issues (if any)
  • New features or breaking changes must come with an associated Issue or Discussion
  • My PR does not add any new dependency without an associated Issue or Discussion
• My PR includes bumps details, please run pnpm run bump and flag the impacts properly
• My PR adds relevant tests and they would have failed without my PR (when applicable)

Advanced

• Category: ...
• Impacts: ...

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 77572c0

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
fast-check	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[pkg-pr-new]

@fast-check/examples

@fast-check/ava

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@fast-check/ava@6285

@fast-check/expect-type

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@fast-check/expect-type@6285

fast-check

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/fast-check@6285

@fast-check/jest

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@fast-check/jest@6285

@fast-check/packaged

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@fast-check/packaged@6285

@fast-check/poisoning

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@fast-check/poisoning@6285

@fast-check/vitest

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@fast-check/vitest@6285

@fast-check/worker

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@fast-check/worker@6285

commit: 77572c0

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.02%. Comparing base (82c731c) to head (77572c0).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6285      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.04%   95.02%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         200      200              
  Lines        5309     5326      +17     
  Branches     1401     1409       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits         5046     5061      +15     
- Misses        251      253       +2     
  Partials       12       12              

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	95.02% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
tests-against-24.x-on-macOS	95.02% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[emilianbold]

Note the patch has 100% coverage. Not sure why codecov is complaining.