Fail upon encountering unrecognized fields when parsing config structures

[fsoikin]

Fixes purescript/spago#1165

[f-f]

We should also regenerate the lockfile using spago 0.93.19

[f-f]

@thomashoneyman could we revert this one? We are introducing strict parsing of the Manifest, Metadata, which breaks forward compatibility guarantees (i.e. older versions of this library being able to parse files produced with newer versions which might introduce new fields.

@fsoikin if the intention is to support purescript/spago#1165 then we don't need any of these changes: the Spago config only needs strict record parsing for the Location type. The other types we are using in the Config parsing are newtypes so are not affected by strict record parsing.

[thomashoneyman]

Ah, I was just thinking about backwards compatibility. We can revert.

[fsoikin]

The Location type does need strict parsing because the subdir field is optional and therefore subject to typos. But what about backwards compatibility? The same codec is used for network communication too, right? Maybe have too codecs - Location.codec and Location.codecStrict?

[f-f]

I think we should let the registry do its thing and just have the strict codecs we need in spago itself - the codecs don't need to be colocated with the types

[fsoikin]

But then subdir is subject to typos, which is what purescript/spago#1165 is complaining about.

[fsoikin]

Could be n misspelled subDir or sub_dir, or even ref by mixing up different formats of similar purpose.

[f-f]

We can use strict codecs in spago and avoid the typos, but we should just duplicate the codec there instead of changing this one. We don't have the same forwards compatibility concerns in spago itself (we do have some, but just for a subset of the config file)

[fsoikin]

Ah, I see the constructors are exported. Somehow I thought they weren't, similar to Version and PackageName.