.checkNamingConventions() documentation in codeCheck() points to non-existant URL

[0UmfHxcvx5J7JoaOhFSs5mncnisTJJ6q]

gms/R/codeCheck.R

Line 109 in 9a604ba

# https://github.com/magpiemodel/tutorials/blob/master/4_GAMScodeStructure.md#23-coding-etiquette-variable-and-parameter-naming # nolint

And should the gms package not document itself what exactly it is checking, instead of pointing somewhere?
As it stands, the next best things to documentation are the "coding etiquettes" of the MAgPIE and REMIND models, and they differ.
https://github.com/magpiemodel/magpie/blob/fee7e6a916eb5861f4f406b1886fd28430b34de0/main.gms#L107-L110

*' The prefixes have to be extended in some cases by a second letter
*'
*'  * ?m_ module-relevant object - This object is used by at least one module and the core code. Changes related to this object have to be performed carefully.
*'  * ?00_ (a 2-digit number) module-only object This 2-digit number defines the module the object belongs to. The number is used here to make sure that different modules cannot have the same object

https://github.com/remindmodel/remind/blob/6bc0d045141a3a5af894b9925993b0845778f4d2/main.gms#L107-L111

*' These prefixes are extended in some cases by a second letter:
*'
*' * "?m_" to designate objects used in the core and in at least one module.
*' * "?00_" to designate objects used in a single module, exclusively, with the 2-digit number corresponding
*'          to the module number.