Fix limit parameter for certain RPC calls

[PeterChen13579]

High Level Overview of Change

Fix limit error for #4540, #4541 and #4315

Context of Change

limit value should be inclusive between 10-400. Any range outside will be considered an error for api version 2 onwards.
More discussion can be found here:

Type of Change

• [ X] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ X] Tests (You added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)

Added unit test that calls limit outside of valid range for api V2

[ximinez]

Two objections to this.

1. Deal breaker: Don't use hard-coded values. The function has a range parameter. Use it.
2. Opinion: As indicated by the description in Docs: clarify that limit values below 10 will be set to 10, and values above 400 will be set to 400 xrpl-dev-portal#1985, the docs need to be clarified, not the code. In rippled-land, docs reflect the code, not the other way around, except in the case of a bug. This is not a bug - it's an intentional design decision. Better to have one result with more or fewer results than requested than to have the client send a bunch of "broken" requests trying to figure out the valid range because they haven't read the docs.

[PeterChen13579]

@ximinez I had a discussion with @godexsoft. He mentioned they were following the Rippled Documentation(limit) for Clio, and to change it on their side takes a lot more work than changing it on rippled's side. As rippled should match Clio, we both agreed to change it on rippled. Maybe @godexsoft can give more insight?

[ximinez]

@ximinez I had a discussion with @godexsoft. He mentioned they were following the Rippled Documentation(limit) for Clio, and to change it on their side takes a lot more work than changing it on rippled's side. As rippled should match Clio, we both agreed to change it on rippled. Maybe @godexsoft can give more insight?

I replied to @godexsoft's comment at XRPLF/xrpl-dev-portal#1985 (comment) with the reasons that I disagree with this decision. Most significantly, I don't think the docs say anything about needing to return an error. Clio should match rippled.

[ximinez]

This looks fine if we decide this is the correct solution, but I'm going to hold off approving, until a final decision is made.

[godexsoft]

Looks good to me too @PeterChen13579 👍 But we did end up implementing the clamping behaviour in Clio instead. Will have to discard this PR.

[PeterChen13579]

Discarded PR. Clamping supported on Clio.
Reference: XRPLF/clio#740