Fix Rfc1918ClassBPrivateSpec incorrect matches

[improved-broccoli]

Fix #795

[improved-broccoli]

A test failed, but it does not seem related to my changes:

[info] + RefTypeRead.load success: OK, proved property.
1179Error: Option --foo failed when given '0'. Predicate failed: (0 > 0).
1180Usage: tests [options]
1181
1182  -f, --foo <value>  foo is a positive integer property
1183[info] + RefTypeRead.load failure (predicate): OK, proved property.
1184Error: Option --foo expects a number but was given 'abc'
1185Usage: tests [options]
1186
1187  -f, --foo <value>  foo is a positive integer property

It already happened on master.

[fthomas]

I think the error that failed the build is:

[warn] /home/travis/build/fthomas/refined/modules/core/shared/src/main/scala/eu/timepit/refined/types/net.scala isn't formatted properly!
[warn] /home/travis/build/fthomas/refined/modules/core/shared/src/main/scala/eu/timepit/refined/types/net.scala isn't formatted properly!
...
[error] 1 files must be formatted
[error] 1 files must be formatted
[error] (coreJS / Compile / scalafmtCheck) 1 files must be formatted
[error] (coreJVM / Compile / scalafmtCheck) 1 files must be formatted

Running sbt scalafmtAll should fix the formatting.

[improved-broccoli]

Didn't know about scalafmtAll command, thanks for telling me.
I push force my changes to avoid a squash, do you mind?
Everything seems ok now.
When do you plan the next release including this fix?
Thanks.

[fthomas]

LGTM now. Many thanks @jbenoit2011!

[fthomas]

I can make a release with this fix soon. But before I do, it may be worth looking into another issue with Rfc1918ClassBPrivateSpec that is mentioned in #702:

There is also a bug in Rfc1918ClassBPrivateSpec. It should start at 172.16.0.0 not 172.15.0.0. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918#section-3

WDYT @jbenoit2011?

[improved-broccoli]

I just pushed a patch to fix the start range of rfc1918 class b ips issue described in #702
EDIT: branch has been merged while I was pushing this new commit :/