#2386. Rename well-bounded tests. Update descriptions

[sgrekhov]

I stashed my changes and some information about renaming was lost. Here it is

class_A01_t01 => well_bounded_A01_t01
class_A01_t02 => well_bounded_A01_t02
class_A01_t03 => well_bounded_A01_t03
function_A01_t01 => well_bounded_A02_t01
function_A01_t02 => well_bounded_A02_t02
function_A01_t03 => well_bounded_A02_t03
typedef1_A01_t01 => well_bounded_A03_t01
typedef1_A01_t04 => well_bounded_A03_t04

Before adding the new tests I checked the existing ones and found that these tests don't follow the accepted naming pattern that file_name_AXX should contain the same assertion text (A in a tests name means Assertion). So, usually test_name_A01_t* have one assertion text, test_name_A02_t* have the next assertion from the same chapter/paragraph etc...

Here an exception from this rule is made for the convinience. All well_bounded_A* tests have the same assertion text, but _A01_t* check classes, _A02_t* functions etc. It's much easer to maintain the renamed tests

[eernstg]

I think we should revisit the wording of a bunch of tests. They are getting close, but they tend to say "well-bounded" about everything, and we are actually looking at 3-4 different kinds of rules and corresponding errors.

[sgrekhov]

Thank you! Descriptions are updated. With this PR I stepped onto a land of superbounded types which is not well-familiar to me

[eernstg]

I don't think anybody has super-bounded types completely under the skin. 😸

[eernstg]

Guess what, I found a bunch of other things to complain about. But it's just about little things now. ;-)

[sgrekhov]

Descriptions and comments updated. Thank you! Please take another look

[eernstg]

Just one typo left!

[sgrekhov]

Typo fixed, thank you!

[eernstg]

LGTM, thanks!