Enforce explicit accessor pattern across core APIs (remove macro/inline accessors)

[Copilot]

This change aligns the codebase with the requested accessor pattern: getters and edit_* methods are now explicit class methods implemented in .cc files, avoiding macro-generated and inline accessor bodies.
A full audit found one remaining non-conforming class, which is now refactored to match the same convention used in DocraftDocument, DocraftDocumentContext, and the parser API.

• Pattern consolidation

  • Removed accessor macro definitions from docraft_lib.h.
  • Kept APIs explicit and type-specific (including const/mutable variants) instead of generic macro expansion.

• Core API alignment

  • DocraftDocument, DocraftDocumentContext, and DocraftCraftLanguageParser now expose explicit accessor declarations in headers with implementations in corresponding .cc files.

• Codebase-wide completion

  • Refactored DocraftDocumentMetadata to remove inline accessor/setter/clear bodies from the header.
  • Added docraft_document_metadata.cc and moved all method implementations there.
  • Updated CMake source list to compile the new translation unit.

Example of the applied pattern:

// header (.h)
[[nodiscard]] const std::optional<std::string>& author() const;
void set_author(const std::string& author);

// source (.cc)
const std::optional<std::string>& DocraftDocumentMetadata::author() const { return author_; }
void DocraftDocumentMetadata::set_author(const std::string& author) { author_ = author; }

[Cadons]

@copilot apply comments, rember edit_ and get_ must always created using the macro, no mixture except if there is an exception, but in these cases I don't see exceptions

[Copilot]

@copilot apply comments, rember edit_ and get_ must always created using the macro, no mixture except if there is an exception, but in these cases I don't see exceptions

Applied in ac081d2 and refined in 281ea8d: remaining getter/edit accessor pairs in the touched areas are now macro-generated (no manual mix).

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
25.1% Duplication on New Code (required ≤ 3%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud