Parameter parser AWG

[d-buchmann]

Swaps the min/max AWG values if they are ordered from "small diameter" to "big diameter", i.e. "big number" to "small number".
Fixes #1351.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 58.42%. Comparing base (57a0dfd) to head (5fa167b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1408      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     58.44%   58.42%   -0.02%     
- Complexity     8667     8669       +2     
============================================
  Files           634      634              
  Lines         27991    27995       +4     
============================================
- Hits          16359    16357       -2     
- Misses        11632    11638       +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[jbtronics]

Hmm i am not really a big fan of introducing a hardcoded special case for AWG. Something more universal would be good.

[d-buchmann]

I see, and I'm all for a universal solution. But parameters themselves are very generic, so Part-DB basically knows nothing about them from the start.

I can think of two ways to approach this:

1. Exert more control
   Put up a predefined list of parameters and attach special rules if needed (e.g. swapping min/max for reciprocal definitions like AWG or the "Conductance" of a resistor: $G = 1/R$). Then we can apply them if they match any parameter that is added.

2. Exert less control
   Do not validate the numerical parameter values at all. This would make things much simpler, but then user typos or nonsensical responses from info providers could not be prevented.

Possible middle ground: Show a warning instead of an error on validation failure and allow saving anyway.
In my experience, this occurs rather seldom, so the user can fix it quickly or leave it as is, but doesn't have to sift though all parameters manually to check for plausibility.

What do you think would be the way to go?