[DEE-206] [feat] Allow Users to Create Checks On the Fly

## Background
as we have checks pre-configured in the package, a user may want a specific check that is yet to be created,
or a specific check his personal needs, that might cause the users to pass on the ability to use the package as it won't fully answer their needs

## Considerations
- Creating a check at runtime should be as easy as possible, while still answering the needs of the user & the package (output wise, interface wise)
- Checks that are created on the fly should be defined if they are data checks or model checks as that changes some of the behaviour
- Creating a check by the user needs to be fully documented with examples as it may become a key factor in the users decision to adopt the package

### Proposal Concept
Allow the users to define, whether `ipynb` or `py` to create a check at runtime (or 'On the Fly')
That way even if the package does not answer the users whole needs, it might still answer enough while allowing the users to fully customize its specific.

## Thought on implementations
at most, all checks have the following:
- a "check" which actually validates against the data/model
- a "validation" which makes sure that the input data is correct
- an "output" which depends on future implementations and changes, needs to correlate with the global package usage

as such, I feel the main option for that is create a class (lets call it `CustomCheck` for this thought).
`CustomCheck` should have a function that returns a check, which can later be injected into suites, or run independently
it may look a bit like this:

### our CustomCheck may look like this
```python
...
##imports

#CustomDatasetBaseCheck should have
from mlchecks.base.check import CheckResult, CustomDatasetBaseCheck
...

class CustomCheck(CustomUserCheck):
# variable to hold the "Requires" field
# variable to hold the "checkFunction" field
# variable to know if we need to parse the output or not
# basic usage functions

def new( *, checkFunction, requires):
# Returns an initialized CustomCheckClass based on the function requirements
# the "requires" param should change the class behaviour in terms of validation and output, as they differ by the input requirements
# A param to know if we should parse the output of the check or the user wants to do it (if its a plot or something complex)

def run(self, dataset=None, additional_dataset=None, model=None) -> CheckResult:
#Based on the required param, call the appropriate call in mlchecks.base.check to validate
output=checkFunction(dataset=dataset, additional_dataset=None, model=None)
#If needed
#Based on the required param, call the appropriate call in mlchecks.base.check to "output" the data

```

### The vision of implementation by the user
as a basic check, lets assume a user wants to check the row count

```python
...
###imports
from mlchecks.checks import CustomCheck
...

def checkRowCount (dataset: Union[pd.DataFrame, Dataset]):
return len(dataset.data)

rowCountCheck = CustomCheck.new(checkFunction=checkRowCount,
requires=CustomCheck.SINGLE_DATASET, #TWO_DATASETS/DATASET_MODEL/MODEL,etc
) #in the future we may add "output_format=html/json/yaml/cli"

data = {'col1': ['foo', 'bar', 'cat']}
dataframe = pd.DataFrame(data=data)

rowCountCheck.run(dataframe)

```

## Changes that will be required
- there should be a global validation functions regarding the input of the params (that should also be used by internal checks)
- there should be a global output function regarding the input of the params (that should also be used by the internal checks)
- the 2 points above will force changes to **all** the internal checks

EDIT:

We've thought about allowing to user to "choose" if we should parse the output of the check (if its something simple like dataset,etc) or if he wants to add this logic to the check itself (which will make it easier for him to copy paste its existing code almost 1:1)

_{[DEE-206](https://linear.app/deepchecks/issue/DEE-206/[feat]-allow-users-to-create-checks-on-the-fly)}