Regex fixes for compound name parsing

[lasagen]

Hello! Thank you so much for your work on BRENDApyrser. I was using it for a study and found a few issues.

1. Splitting on the "+" character to parse out the reactions was also getting rid of +s indicating that a compound was a positive ion, e.g. H+. I changed substratesAndProducts to only split on "+" if there are spaces around it and leave +s in compound names.
2. Comments inside pipe | characters were being left in the compound name instead of being added to the meta field. I added them to the meta field in __extractDataField and __extractReactionMechanismInfo.
3. Issue Compound names wrongly parsed #12 mentions compound names being wrongly parsed when they contain parentheses. This is because the parser was extracting the first match of something in parentheses and putting that in the meta field. I changed extractDataLineInfo to only add something in parentheses to the meta field if it starts with whitespace.

These worked for me, but there are definitely better ways to do them, so feel free to suggest changes. Thanks again!

[lasagen]

Hey, I saw that the macos-latest check was failing for this PR - looking at the details it seems to be failing in the middle of setting up the conda environment, before the build and test stages. Is this just a case where you have to update the action, or is there something I'm missing that I should change?

[Robaina]

Hi @lasagen, thank you for these fixes and the detailed write-up! 🙏 Since you opened this, BRENDA switched from the flat text file to a structured JSON document (schema 2.0.0), so the parser was rewritten on and these regex changes no longer apply to the new code. But two of the three issues you found were still present in the JSON parser, and I've re-implemented your fixes there:

Ion charges (H+, NAD+) were still dropped — fixed by splitting on " + " (your approach).
|...| pipe comments still leaked into compound names — now stripped and folded into the comment field.
The parentheses issue (#12) is now handled by the JSON's separate comment field.
I credited you as co-author on commit 849e8cb so your contribution stays in the history. Closing in favour of the JSON rewrite, but thank you, these were real bugs and your report directly improved the new parser!