Update the template for detector parameter table

[Chao1009]

Briefly, what does this PR introduce?

Update the template for generating a detector parameter table from simulation constants.
The new template will be created based on the latest detector parameter table. (https://eic.jlab.org/Geometry/Detector/local/D/DetectorParameterTable-20230927.csv)
It only focuses on the comparable columns, so some columns such as "comments" will be dropped.
This PR partially resolves #552

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bug fix (issue #__)
• New feature (issue #__)
• Documentation update
• Other: __

Please check if this PR fulfills the following:

• Tests for the changes have been added
• Documentation has been added / updated
• Changes have been communicated to collaborators

Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?

No

Does this PR change default behavior?

No

[Chao1009]

Edit: build the template based on 2023/09 table
Now every row matches but most of them are just place holder (no simulation variable implemented)

    "stats": {
        "checked_columns": [
            "Length (cm)",
            "Inner Radius (cm)",
            "Outer Radius (cm)",
            "Offset from Center (cm)",
            "Physical Start (cm)",
            "Physical End (cm)"
        ],
        "table_components": {
            "detector": {
                "total": 67,
                "matched": 67,
                "missing": 0
            },
            "simulation": {
                "total": 67,
                "matched": 67,
                "missing": 0
            }
        },
        "component_values": {
            "checked_components": 67,
            "checked_values": 402,
            "mismatched": 27,
            "missing": 359,
            "correct": 16
        }
    },

[Chao1009]

There are bunch of constants exist in the previous template but could not match any component in the new parameter table. Trying to recover some of those in the new template.

[wdconinc]

Looks good to me for merging now.

Or we can wait and I can add the inner tracker r variables. I went through those today. Could also wait until a next pr and keep things moving. Your call.

[Chao1009]

I think we can wait for the inner tracker updates. There is no urgent need to merge this.

[wdconinc]

There is no urgent need to merge this.

Yeah, but that's how you end up with eternal pull requests that just keep running parallel. My thinking is usually by asking myself the question "is there a clear milestone to call the PR done for which I could right now implement the commits if I only had the time," versus "is this something that could continue to be tweaked for a long time while asymptotically reaching perfection"? If it's the former, ok to wait with merge. If it's the latter, I try to do merges as I go along.

[Chao1009]

This has to be

"is this something that could continue to be tweaked for a long time while asymptotically reaching perfection"

But we will update the information (the smaller comparison table) in those issues of "Detector Parameters Update" after merging this PR and fixing some obvious issues (e.g., #559). So the inclusion of the tracker parameters is good for this purpose.