Simplify JavaIntegerConstraint structure to align with decimal constraint improvements

[Seol-JY]

Summary

This PR simplifies the JavaIntegerConstraint structure by removing the separate positive and negative range handling, aligning with the recent decimal constraint implementation improvements in #1131. Additionally, it improves the handling of @Digits annotation for integer types.

Related issues:
Fixes #1153

Description

This PR implements a simplification of the integer constraint structure and improves digit validation:

1. Simplified JavaIntegerConstraint Structure

• Removed redundant fields by eliminating separate positive/negative range handling
• Replaced with a single min/max range representation:

  JavaIntegerConstraint(
      @Nullable BigInteger min,
      @Nullable BigInteger max
  )

• Ensures uniform distribution across valid ranges

2. Improved @Digits Annotation Processing for Integers

• Aligned @Digits validation behavior with Jakarta Validation's actual implementation
• Previous implementation was overly restrictive, forcing exact digit counts
• New implementation matches actual validation rules:
  • For @Digits(integer=3), correctly allows any number up to 999 (≤ 3 digits)
  • Example: Both 5 and 999 are now valid where previously only exact 3-digit numbers might be generated

3. Consolidated Constraint Processing

• Updated constraint generation to maintain a single valid range
• Preserved all current Jakarta Validation annotation support (@Min, @Max, @Positive, @Negative, etc.)
• Aligned implementation style with the recent decimal validation improvements from Enhance decimal validation to match actual Jakarta Validation behavior and fix related issues #1131

4. Reduced Code Complexity

• Simplified constraint logic and improved maintainability
• Ensured consistent integer constraint handling with our decimal constraint implementation
• Maintained full compatibility with Jakarta Validation expectations

How Has This Been Tested?

Updated @Digits annotation tests for integer types to verify correct validation behavior.

Is the Document updated?

No documentation update is required as this is an internal implementation improvement that maintains the same behavior from the user's perspective.

[Seol-JY]

I think this part may be a bit ambiguous. Should we change the variable name?

[seongahjo]

Sure

[seongahjo]

I think the fields in SimpleValueJqwikPlugin should be also simplified.

	@Nullable
	private Long positiveMinNumberValue = null;
	@Nullable
	private Long positiveMaxNumberValue = null;
	@Nullable
	private Long negativeMinNumberValue = null;
	@Nullable
	private Long negativeMaxNumberValue = null;

[seongahjo]

It is better not to use the abbreviation to avoid confusion.

digitsAnn -> digitsAnnotation

[seongahjo]

It is better not to use the abbreviation to avoid confusion as well.

[Seol-JY]

@seongahjo
I noticed that the supplierReturnsNew test failed during the CI process for my changes:

FAILED
303 java.lang.AssertionError at FixtureMonkeyTest.java:1044

This appears to be an intermittent issue. To investigate further, I increased the test execution from the original 10 attempts to 100,000 attempts locally by modifying the annotation to @Property(tries = 100000). During this extended testing, I observed a single failure.
I'm wondering if this very rare failure is related to my changes or if it's an existing intermittent issue in the test itself.

[seongahjo]

I'm wondering if this very rare failure is related to my changes or if it's an existing intermittent issue in the test itself.

👍 It's a known issue, don't worry about it.

[seongahjo]

👍