fix: Fix multiple validity error

[benyakirten]

I received an erroneous validity and incorrect visibility interpretation when parsing the following TAF:

TAF MNMG 260600Z 2306/2406 VRB04KT 9999 FEW020 SCT070 
                    TEMPO 2308/2312 9999/8000 RA/DZ BKN020 
                    TEMPO 2314/2316 09010KT 9999/9000 -DZ SCT022 SCT070 
                    BECMG 2321/2323 7000 -TSRA/RA FEW020CB SCT070

The TEMPO lines had the validity as starting from month 99, day 99 to month 80, day 0 for the first and from month 99, day 99 to month 90 day 0 for the second. This is because the format (\d{4}/\d{4}) is identical to the validity.

I added checking for if the validity was valid (month must be < 32 and hour must be < 24), and if it's not then it will be read as a distance in meters.

[mivek]

Hello @benyakirten

It is the first time I see this representation for the visibility. How is it interpreted ?
The parser implements the FMH specs and I cannot find it.
What bothers me here is that there is already a Command to handle the visibility part and this PR adds another way to do it. I am not sure I want to support it in the parser

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
0 Accepted issues

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

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 5 days.