Modified boxes_to_shapefile function

[Om-Doiphode]

Fixes Issue #516:

The following modifications have been made:

• Updated the boxes_to_shapefile function in utilities.py to use the 'rgb' argument instead of 'image_path'.
• Modified the test functions in test_utilities.py to ensure the correct functionality of the modified boxes_to_shapefile function.

[bw4sz]

We just need to update docs and examples to match. Quick search found

https://deepforest.readthedocs.io/en/latest/annotation.html#how-can-i-view-current-predictions-as-shapefiles

[ethanwhite]

I like this change, but note that it is backwards breaking (including for some of the lab's code). Ideally once we merge this the next release should be 2.0. A couple of possible ways to avoid needing to do this:

1. One option when deprecating positional args is to replace the function with one with a new name and then deprecate the old function. This might actually be the best solution here since then we wouldn't be rushed into 2.0. Possible names include reproject_boxes, boxes_to_projection, boxes_to_original_projection.
2. This also relates to Understanding the issue #608 #638 and Outputs should attach geometry if available #608. So one option is to move the officially supported behavior to inside the relevant functions with an option argument to maintain projection when present. We then deprecate the function instructing the user to use the optional argument to the relevant function (and since this is now internal we avoid future issues with user facing changes).
3. If (1) and (2) don't work for some reason then we could at least check the new rgb argument to see if it includes a filename. If it doesn't then perform the previous behavior and throw a deprecation warning. This would at least prevent breaking code where root_dir was used positionally.

Thoughts?

[ethanwhite]

See my comment about backwards compatibility and alternative approaches before merging this.

[ethanwhite]

@bw4sz - can you response to #597 (comment) when you have a minute so that we can get this one moving forward

[bw4sz]

I don't think we are ready for this change. There is a geo-type branch that will hold points, polygons, and boxes as part of geodataframe objects. We should wait until I finish that branch this summer.

#590

[ethanwhite]

OK. Thanks @bw4sz. Given that I'm going to close this PR and I've assigned #516 to you so that folks know not to work on it further until you say so. I'm going to move the text of my comment over there.

[ethanwhite]

Thanks for the contribution @Om-Doiphode - we just weren't quite ready for this one yet. Once @bw4sz lets us know this is ready to proceed we can chat about coming back to it.