Fix missing links to SpeziValidation package (#57)

# Fix missing links to SpeziValidation package

## ♻️ Current situation & Problem
There were missing links in the current documentation. This PR resolves
this issues.
Further, we resolve some weird DocC warning and add codecov token to
coverage uploads.


## ⚙️ Release Notes 
* Documentation fixes
* CodeCov token upload


## 📝 Code of Conduct & Contributing Guidelines 

By submitting creating this pull request, you agree to follow our [Code
of
Conduct](https://github.com/StanfordSpezi/.github/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)
and [Contributing
Guidelines](https://github.com/StanfordSpezi/.github/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md):
- [x] I agree to follow the [Code of
Conduct](https://github.com/StanfordSpezi/.github/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md)
and [Contributing
Guidelines](https://github.com/StanfordSpezi/.github/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).

.github/workflows/build-and-test.yml

@@ -38,3 +38,5 @@ jobs:
     uses: StanfordSpezi/.github/.github/workflows/create-and-upload-coverage-report.yml@v2
     with:
       coveragereports: SpeziAccount.xcresult TestApp.xcresult
+    secrets:
+      token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }}

CITATION.cff

@@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ authors:
 - family-names: "Schmiedmayer"
   given-names: "Paul"
   orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-9148"
+- family-names: "Bauer"
+  given-names: "Andreas"
+  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1680-237X"
 - family-names: "Ravi"
   given-names: "Vishnu"
   orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0359-1275"

Sources/SpeziAccount/AccountValue/AccountValues.swift

@@ -29,9 +29,6 @@ public protocol AccountValuesCollection: AcceptingAccountValueVisitor, Collectio
 /// - ``AccountAnchor``
 /// - ``AccountStorage``
 public protocol AccountValues: AccountValuesCollection {
-    /// Builder pattern to build a container of this type.
-    typealias Builder = AccountValuesBuilder<Self>
-
     /// The underlying storage repository.
     var storage: AccountStorage { get }
 
@@ -53,6 +50,12 @@ public protocol AccountValues: AccountValuesCollection {
 }
 
 
+extension AccountValues {
+    /// Builder pattern to build a container of this type.
+    public typealias Builder = AccountValuesBuilder<Self>
+}
+
+
 extension AccountValues {
     /// Default `Collection` implementation.
     public var startIndex: Index {

Sources/SpeziAccount/SpeziAccount.docc/Account Values/Adding new Account Values.md

@@ -154,17 +154,16 @@ extension BiographyKey {
 
 ##### Input Validation
 
-Input validation relies on the `SpeziValidation` package.
-```swift
-// TODO: link to validation! whole section
-```
+Input validation relies on the [SpeziValidation](https://swiftpackageindex.com/StanfordSpezi/SpeziViews/documentation/spezivalidation) package.
+
 `SpeziAccount` provides basic validation for most cases where necessary due to ``FieldValidationRules`` or ``AccountKeyRequirement`` configurations.
 Still, you are required to evaluate to which extent validation has to be handled in your implementation.
 
 * For all `String`-based types validation is automatically managed. Validation is either configured based on
     the rules provided by the account service through ``FieldValidationRules`` or if the user specified a ``AccountKeyRequirement/required`` level.
-    If not using default components like `VerifiableTextField`, you need to visualize validation results yourself using the `ValidationEngine` in the
-    environment.
+    If not using default components like [`VerifiableTextField`](https://swiftpackageindex.com/stanfordspezi/speziviews/documentation/spezivalidation/verifiabletextfield)),
+    you need to visualize validation results yourself using the [`ValidationEngine`](https://swiftpackageindex.com/stanfordspezi/speziviews/documentation/spezivalidation/validationengine))
+    in the environment.
 * For other types that use ``InitialValue/empty(_:)`` and are specified to be ``AccountKeyRequirement/required``,
     validation is automatically set up to check if the user provided a value. For example given a `Date`-based account value, we would require that
     the user modifies the Data at least once.