Fix display of the runnable scenario for protected values

[n-osborne]

Fixes #248

As suggested in the issue, the PR add a variant with three constructors to Ortac_runtime_qcheck_stm making it possible to pass the information whether the result is a value, a protected value or an exception from the generated tests to the runtime.

We don't really have tests for failing tests, which explains why we didn't spot the bug earlier. I'll open an issue for that, to keep this PR small and focused on the fix.

[n-osborne]

We now have this behaviour in case of a test failure (here adding let get a i = get a (i+1) to plugins/qcheck-stm/test/array.ml):

λ dune build @launchtests
File "plugins/qcheck-stm/test/dune.inc", lines 49-52, characters 0-75:
49 | (rule
50 |  (alias launchtests)
51 |  (action
52 |   (run %{dep:array_stm_tests.exe} -v)))
random seed: 276043608
generated error fail pass / total     time test name
[✗]    2    0    1    1 / 1000     0.0s Array STM tests (generating)

--- Failure --------------------------------------------------------------------

Test Array STM tests failed (15 shrink steps):

   protect (fun () -> set <sut> 0 '\186')
   protect (fun () -> get <sut> 0)


+++ Messages ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Messages for test Array STM tests:

Gospel specification violation in function get

  File "array.mli", line 12, characters 12-37:
    a = List.nth t.contents i
  
when executing the following sequence of operations:

  open Array
  let protect f = try Ok (f ()) with e -> Error e
  let sut0 = make 16 'a'
  let _ = protect (fun () -> set sut0 0 '\186')
  (* returned Ok (()) *)
  let r = protect (fun () -> get sut0 0)
  assert (r = Ok '\186')
  (* returned Ok ('a') *)
  

================================================================================
failure (1 tests failed, 0 tests errored, ran 1 tests)

[n-osborne]

Rebased. Ready for review.

[nikolaushuber]

Not directly related, but since I stumbled upon it again during the review of this PR, there seems to be an issue with showing inbuilt types as return types: #260

Otherwise this PR LGTM :)

[n-osborne]

Thanks! Merging.