Close #LGVISIUM-83: Extract coordinates with non integer values

[dcleres]

Made it possible to extract digits from the coordinates by adapting the regex code. Adapted the tests to this new case and uploaded a new test file to test these cases.

[dcleres]

I needed to increase the size of the boxes; otherwise, the coordinates would not be printed because the box was too small.

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

File	Stmts	Miss	Cover	Missing
src/stratigraphy
__init__.py	8	1	88%	11
extract.py	186	186	0%	3–483
get_files.py	19	19	0%	3–47
main.py	119	119	0%	3–310
src/stratigraphy/data_extractor
data_extractor.py	50	3	94%	32, 62, 98
src/stratigraphy/depthcolumn
boundarydepthcolumnvalidator.py	41	20	51%	47, 57, 60, 81–84, 110–128, 140–149
depthcolumn.py	194	64	67%	25, 29, 50, 56, 59–60, 84, 87, 94, 101, 109–110, 120, 137–153, 191, 228, 247–255, 266, 271, 278, 309, 314–321, 336–337, 380–422
depthcolumnentry.py	28	6	79%	17, 21, 36, 39, 56, 65
find_depth_columns.py	106	19	82%	42–43, 73, 86, 180–181, 225–245
src/stratigraphy/layer
layer_identifier_column.py	74	52	30%	16–17, 20, 28, 43, 47, 51, 59–63, 66, 74, 91–96, 99, 112, 125–126, 148–158, 172–199
src/stratigraphy/lines
geometric_line_utilities.py	86	2	98%	81, 131
line.py	51	4	92%	25, 50, 60, 110
linesquadtree.py	46	1	98%	75
src/stratigraphy/metadata
coordinate_extraction.py	108	5	95%	30, 64, 94–95, 107
src/stratigraphy/text
description_block_splitter.py	70	2	97%	24, 139
extract_text.py	29	3	90%	19, 53–54
find_description.py	64	28	56%	27–35, 50–63, 79–95, 172–175
textblock.py	80	9	89%	28, 56, 64, 89, 101, 124, 145, 154, 183
src/stratigraphy/util
dataclasses.py	32	3	91%	37–39
interval.py	104	55	47%	29–32, 37–40, 46, 52, 56, 66–68, 107–153, 174, 180–196
predictions.py	107	107	0%	3–282
util.py	39	17	56%	41, 69–76, 90–92, 116–117, 129–133
TOTAL	1641	725	56%

Tests	Skipped	Failures	Errors	Time
82	0 💤	0 ❌	0 🔥	6.302s ⏱️

[stijnvermeeren-swisstopo]

Having looked at it a little more, I think that I do have a solution that keeps the performance status-quo without requiring the additional preprocessing hack. I would use the following regex:

r"(?:([12])[\.\s'‘’]{0,2})?(\d{3})[\.\s'‘’]{0,2}(\d{3})(?:\.(\d{1,}))?"

The difference is that IF we extract decimal digits, THEN the decimal point is required. The current regex has the decimal point always as optional, regardless of whether we have some decimal digits or not.

[stijnvermeeren-swisstopo]

LGTM!