PLT-7305 - Improve error message on invalid addresses

[palas]

This PR:

• Adds linting warning when addresses are invalid.
• Show an error when trying to statically analyze contracts with invalid addresses (which solves the huge and cryptic error messages obtained before)
• Updates the burn address in the escrow with collateral example, so that it has the right length and doesn't crash the static analysis
• Adds pertinent tests

In order to achieve this, the PR also implements the address validation algorithm in PureScript, with the following caveats:

• It doesn't support paying to script (it would be misleading since, as I understand it, it is not feasible because there is no way of providing a datum)
• It doesn't support pointers (the serialization code in Haskell doesn't either)

I am tagging @bwbush for expertise on CIP19, and @hrajchert for expertise in PureScript and the Playground.

It would be good to double check the way I am validating the padding of the bech32, I am not 100% confident it is correct.

If you merge the PR, please squash it, because some of the intermediate commits are broken.

Pre-submit checklist:

• Branch
  • Tests are provided (if possible)
  • Commit sequence broadly makes sense
  • Key commits have useful messages
  • Relevant tickets are mentioned in commit messages
  • Formatting, materialized Nix files, PNG optimization, etc. are updated
• PR
  • Self-reviewed the diff
  • Useful pull request description
  • Reviewer requested

[bwbush]

Looks great. It's nice to get this into the linter.

There's another test that could be done during linting: checking that the contract isn't mixing mainnet and testnet addresses, since there would be no network where the contract could run correctly. (In fact, we might want to have the "send to Runner" check that the contract has addresses that are consistent with the network.)

[palas]

There's another test that could be done during linting: checking that the contract isn't mixing mainnet and testnet addresses, since there would be no network where the contract could run correctly. (In fact, we might want to have the "send to Runner" check that the contract has addresses that are consistent with the network.)

Good idea, I made a ticket: PLT-8828