Bugfix/ls24003807/S to DS with positive number

[davidepalladino-apuliasoft]

Description

This work resolves the issue when using the MOVE/MOVEL operations to move an alphanumeric standalone field into a data structure field. The table below describes the currently handled use cases:

Value *	DS Field Type	Precision (Scale)	Result	Notes
'00520'	ZONED	5 (0)	520
'00520'	ZONED	5 (2)	5.2
'0052 '	ZONED		Error	The value must contain only numbers.
'00520'	PACKED		Error	The value must not contain only numbers.

* standalone field value or sub-value

Techincal notes

Every sub-value have to match with related DS field. To fix these problems in Jariko, I improved:

• DataStructValue, that checks if a NumberType, as ZONED, has the right syntax;
• coercing file, that checks if the value is number and the destination RPG type is PACKED, to launch an Exception.
  Then, movel simply creates an instance of DataStructValue by reusing the same logic for EVAL, allowed for MOVE/MOVEL.

Related to #LS24003807

Checklist:

• If this feature involves RPGLE fixes or improvements, they are well-described in the summary.
• There are tests for this feature.
• RPGLE code used for tests is easily understandable and includes comments that clarify the purpose of this feature.
• The code follows Kotlin conventions (run ./gradlew ktlintCheck).
• The code passes all tests (run ./gradlew check).
• Relevant documentation is included in the docs directory.

[davidepalladino-apuliasoft]

Updated description of this PR.

[lanarimarco]

Data structure implementation is one of the most difficult (or worst) parts of Jariko.

This PR passes all tests, but frankly, regarding the change to the fun get(data: FieldDefinition): Value operator, I cannot confidently predict if this will cause regressions in real-world scenarios.

What concerns me is that we're allowing the creation of an incorrect data structure. There’s no validation in the constructor or setter methods, with validation only present in the fun get(data: FieldDefinition): Value. However, I don’t want to spend more time on this code review because it may not be productive, and then let's move on.