Fix documentation issues

[benoitgaudou]

Fixes attempt for issues #222, #219, #220, #214 from gama-platform.github.io repository

[codescene-delta-analysis]

❌ Code Health Quality Gates: FAILED

• Declining Code Health: 1 findings(s) 🚩
• Improving Code Health: 6 findings(s) ✅
• Affected Hotspots: 1 files(s) 🔥

View detailed results in CodeScene

[codescene-delta-analysis]

❌ Code Health Quality Gates: FAILED

• Declining Code Health: 2 findings(s) 🚩
• Improving Code Health: 9 findings(s) ✅
• Affected Hotspots: 1 files(s) 🔥

View detailed results in CodeScene

[codescene-delta-analysis]

✅ Getting better: Overall Code Complexity
The mean cyclomatic complexity decreases from 9.22 to 7.77, threshold = 4

[codescene-delta-analysis]

✅ Getting better: Bumpy Road Ahead
processDocXMLOperators decreases from 5 to 2 logical blocks with deeply nested code, threshold is one single block per function

[codescene-delta-analysis]

✅ Getting better: Complex Method
processDocXMLOperators decreases in cyclomatic complexity from 24 to 12, threshold = 9

[codescene-delta-analysis]

❌ New issue: Code Duplication
The module contains 5 functions with similar structure: addCategories,addConcepts,processDocXMLStatementsInsideKind,processDocXMLStatementsInsideSymbol and 1 more functions

_Suppress

[codescene-delta-analysis]

✅ No longer an issue: Deep, Nested Complexity
processDocXMLOperators is no longer above the threshold for nested complexity depth

[lesquoyb]

I think that's good enough for the codescene report, the only thing we could do to help with code "duplication" is to refactor completely the module to have getConcepts, getCategories and getDocElt to merge into one method. I don't think it's worth the hassle and it would probably lead to a monster of a method anyway

[lesquoyb]

I think that's good enough for the codescene report, the only thing we could do to help with code "duplication" is to refactor completely the module to have getConcepts, getCategories and getDocElt to merge into one method. I don't think it's worth the hassle and it would probably lead to a monster of a method anyway.
There's just one thing I want you to double check for me: I commented out those lines:

			if (e.getAnnotation(doc.class) != null && !"".equals(e.getAnnotation(doc.class).deprecated())) {
				// We just omit it
			} else {

because that test was already done a few lines above, so my guess was that it was some forgotten code with no practical impact, but maybe I overlooked it and it makes sense ?

[benoitgaudou]

Indeed you can remove one if :-)