Markdown: Reintroduce double-backticks for inline code rendering

[sschuberth]

This partly reverts 9cf9f08 and add a code comment to explain why the
double-backticks were in fact intended, also see

#3523 (comment)

[schalkms]

Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the occurrences that contain back-ticks in order to avoid this special case here? What do you think? @BraisGabin

[BraisGabin]

How would you avoid this? https://detekt.github.io/detekt/naming.html#functionnaming

What's the problem with the double tick?

[schalkms]

How would you avoid this?

@BraisGabin one can avoid this scenario by putting three back-ticks around it '```'.

[BraisGabin]

@BraisGabin one can avoid this scenario by putting three back-ticks around it '```'.

That would make us to change the documentation and now that we are introducing the @Configuration annotation to extract the information directly from the code we can't do this. I still don't get what's wrong with using double quote.

[schalkms]

The official Markdown guide specifies the double back-tick as a valid way to escape a code snippet [1]. Hence, this is fine for me.

[1] https://www.markdownguide.org/basic-syntax/#escaping-backticks

[schalkms]

The test suite is unfortunately not green for this PR.

[sschuberth]

The test suite is unfortunately not green for this PR.

Should be fixed now.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3545 (44389c1) into main (aa46448) will increase coverage by 0.69%.
The diff coverage is 86.75%.

❗ Current head 44389c1 differs from pull request most recent head e77c15c. Consider uploading reports for the commit e77c15c to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #3545      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     77.53%   78.22%   +0.69%     
+ Complexity     2835     2826       -9     
============================================
  Files           464      466       +2     
  Lines          8779     9136     +357     
  Branches       1720     1724       +4     
============================================
+ Hits           6807     7147     +340     
- Misses         1046     1059      +13     
- Partials        926      930       +4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...tlab/arturbosch/detekt/api/internal/PathFilters.kt	88.46% <ø> (ø)	5.00 <0.00> (ø)
...lab/arturbosch/detekt/api/internal/PathMatchers.kt	60.00% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <0.00> (ø)
...itlab/arturbosch/detekt/api/internal/Validation.kt	33.33% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <0.00> (ø)
.../kotlin/io/gitlab/arturbosch/detekt/cli/CliArgs.kt	100.00% <ø> (ø)	3.00 <0.00> (ø)
.../io/gitlab/arturbosch/detekt/cli/Configurations.kt	0.00% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <0.00> (ø)
...ain/kotlin/io/gitlab/arturbosch/detekt/cli/Spec.kt	82.00% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <0.00> (ø)
...io/gitlab/arturbosch/detekt/core/BindingContext.kt	5.26% <0.00%> (-0.99%)	0.00 <0.00> (ø)
...itlab/arturbosch/detekt/core/ProcessingSettings.kt	100.00% <ø> (ø)	5.00 <0.00> (ø)
...osch/detekt/core/baseline/BaselineResultMapping.kt	78.57% <0.00%> (+5.23%)	8.00 <0.00> (ø)
...sch/detekt/core/config/ValidatableConfiguration.kt	96.96% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <0.00> (ø)
... and 262 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update aa46448...e77c15c. Read the comment docs.