[5.6] Rename comparison validation rules ("gte" to "greater_than_or_equal", etc.)

[Alymosul]

This pull request introduces small modification to the newly added comparison validation rules (gt, lt, gte, lte) added previously in #24091 as follows:

First, it seems that people favour the long expressive form of the rules instead of the short names, therefore i changed the rules from gt to greater_than, lt to less_than, gte to greater_than_or_equal and lte to less_than_or_equal

Also, the previous implementation added the rules to the numericRules array in the Validator class by default which will cause strange output to the validation messages being translated always with the numeric type since the validation messages in the laravel/laravel repository will be something as follows:

    'greater_than_or_equal'                  => [
        'numeric' => 'The :attribute must be greater than or equal :value.',
        'file'    => 'The :attribute must be greater than or equal :value kilobytes.',
        'string'  => 'The :attribute must be greater than or equal :value characters.',
        'array'   => 'The :attribute must have :value items or more.',
    ],

the proposed modification will add the current rule to the numeric rules if and only if the attribute under comparison is a passed numerical value, therefore the rule automatically detects if the attribute should be numeric or not instead of passing and additional numeric rule like that "Numeric|greater_than".

Finally, the PR add replacements methods for the place holders of the newly added rules.

[laurencei]

You would have to either provide support for both gte and greater_than_or_equal etc - or put this to 5.7 branch.

Because it's a breaking change if anyone has started using the new feature already.

edit: disregard

[laurencei]

is this right? Should it be greater_than_or_equal' etc? Or is Gte` etc correct here?

[Alymosul]

yes you're right, should be greater_than_or_equal, etc

[Alymosul]

As for supporting two versions of the rules, i can do it but I think nobody has yet used the rules since the feature was added yesterday and still yet not released in any of the 5.6.x versions, therefore i think we can merge this change safely

[laurencei]

...and still yet not released in any of the 5.6.x versions

Sorry - your right - it's not tagged yet so this could be made safely.

[laurencei]

Is this right again? Because it is Size (notice the upper case first letter) - but you have greater_than.

Shouldnt it be GreaterThan etc?

[Alymosul]

You're right again, sorry it was 4 am here and i was sleepy :D

[taylorotwell]

It's pretty unlikely I will use the long forms for these rules to be honest. The short names of these are used in other popular libraries: Carbon, Lodash.js, etc.

[Alymosul]

I'll change it back to the short names in the same PR since it contains more than renaming

[taylorotwell]

I don't necessarily like this magical detection of numerics and keeping this array of rule numeric state on the instance either. If it's numeric then mark it as numeric in your validation rules.

[taylorotwell]

Tests are failing when I modify that magic stuff. I don't know what to do with this. These simple additions are already giving me a headache.

[Alymosul]

Will submit another PR to remove the magical detection of numerics as well as adding replacements