Don't report links in code blocks

[lue-bird]

Applies to

• Docs.ReviewLinksAndSections
• Docs.UpToDateReadmeLinks

If you include a link to a code example:
```elm
module A exposing (A)
{-| Helpers for [`B.B`](B#B)
-}
import B
```

it triggers both rules

Docs.ReviewLinksAndSections: Link points to non-existing module Expression

202|     module A exposing (A)
203|     {-| Helpers for [`B.B`](B#B)
                           ^^^
204|     -}

This is a dead link.

Docs.UpToDateReadmeLinks: Found relative link to a module in README

202|     module A exposing (A)
203|     {-| Helpers for [`B.B`](B#B)
                           ^^^
204|     -}

Relative links to other modules from the README don't work when looking at the
docs from GitHub or the likes.

I suggest to run elm-review --fix to change the link to an absolute link.

which is not correct because these are not real links that are rendered as such, they are code.

Treat this as a very low prio as checking for it is a bit of work and should only be quite rare in practice.

For implementation we could for example remove all sections from starting-spaced ``` until the next spaced ``` before checking.

[jfmengels]

Good find 👍

For implementation we could for example remove all sections from starting-spaced until the next spaced before checking.

We also need to check for indentation blocks. If you have lines that are indented by 4 (maybe with an empty line above?) then it gets considered as an Elm code block (you'll seen elm-format try to update it). In which case we also need to ignore it.