Add bbox centroid fix

[sfmig]

Description

What is this PR

• Bug fix
• Addition of a new feature
• Other

Why is this PR needed?
When loading bboxes datasets from a VIA tracks file, we stored the coordinates of the top-left corner of each bbox in the dataset. This is inconsistent with the current description in the docs (which always refer to the centroid of the bboxes), and also somewhat inconsistent with the rest of the tools we support.

Fixes #302

What does this PR do?

• Transforms the top-left corner coordinates from the VIA tracks file into the centroid ones, before creating the movement dataset
• Adds some tests

Opinions on the tests are particularly welcome. I aimed to reduce the circularity but not sure if there is a better way.

How has this PR been tested?

Tests pass locally and in CI.

Is this a breaking change?

No.

Does this PR require an update to the documentation?

No, but docstrings of the relevant private functions have been updated.

Checklist:

• The code has been tested locally
• Tests have been added to cover all new functionality
• The documentation has been updated to reflect any changes
• The code has been formatted with pre-commit

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.77%. Comparing base (f4f46df) to head (8bdf271).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #303   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.77%   99.77%           
=======================================
  Files          14       14           
  Lines         883      884    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits          881      882    +1     
  Misses          2        2           

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

[niksirbi]

I'm happy with this to be merged as is, with 1 tiny suggestion.

The new test is a bit circular, you are right, but no better solutions come to my mind right now, and let's not overthink this.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud