Refactoring of values: delete metric subtypes

[uhafner]

To simplify generic metrics, it makes more sense to remove specific subtypes. Each subtype can be replaced by a concrete value instance. This makes handling of software metrics in post processing tools much simpler.

Example output of quality monitor:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.30894% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.04%. Comparing base (fde5a84) to head (43de0f9).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/main/java/edu/hm/hafner/coverage/Metric.java	92.59%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
src/main/java/edu/hm/hafner/coverage/Value.java	90.90%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #129      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     92.98%   93.04%   +0.06%     
+ Complexity      903      840      -63     
============================================
  Files            33       28       -5     
  Lines          2380     2302      -78     
  Branches        355      340      -15     
============================================
- Hits           2213     2142      -71     
+ Misses           93       86       -7     
  Partials         74       74              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-actions]

☀️   Quality Monitor

   🚦   Tests: 100 % successful (✔️ 293 passed)
   〰️   Line Coverage: 96% (97 missed lines)
   ➰   Branch Coverage: 92% (81 missed branches)
     Mutation Coverage: 90% (115 survived mutations)
     CheckStyle: No warnings
     PMD: No warnings
     SpotBugs: No bugs
   🐛   Error Prone: No bugs
     OWASP Dependency Check: No vulnerabilitys

---

Created by Quality Monitor v1.11.0 (#99404b7). More details are shown in the GitHub Checks Result.

[github-actions]

☀️   Quality Monitor

   🚦   Tests: 100 % successful (✔️ 293 passed)
   〰️   Line Coverage: 96% (88 missed lines)
   ➰   Branch Coverage: 92% (81 missed branches)
     Mutation Coverage: 90% (114 survived mutations)
     CheckStyle: No warnings
     PMD: No warnings
     SpotBugs: No bugs
   🐛   Error Prone: No bugs
     OWASP Dependency Check: No vulnerabilitys

---

Created by Quality Monitor v1.11.0 (#99404b7). More details are shown in the GitHub Checks Result.

[github-actions]

☀️   Quality Monitor

   🚦   Tests: 100 % successful (✔️ 293 passed)
   〰️   Line Coverage: 96% (88 missed lines)
   ➰   Branch Coverage: 92% (81 missed branches)
     Mutation Coverage: 90% (114 survived mutations)
     CheckStyle: No warnings
     PMD: 1 warning (normal: 1)
     SpotBugs: No bugs
   🐛   Error Prone: No bugs
     OWASP Dependency Check: No vulnerabilitys

---

Created by Quality Monitor v1.11.0 (#99404b7). More details are shown in the GitHub Checks Result.

[github-actions]

☀️   Quality Monitor

   🚦   Tests: 100 % successful (✔️ 293 passed)
   〰️   Line Coverage: 96% (88 missed lines)
   ➰   Branch Coverage: 92% (81 missed branches)
     Mutation Coverage: 90% (114 survived mutations)
     CheckStyle: No warnings
     PMD: No warnings
     SpotBugs: No bugs
   🐛   Error Prone: No bugs
     OWASP Dependency Check: No vulnerabilitys

---

Created by Quality Monitor v1.11.0 (#99404b7). More details are shown in the GitHub Checks Result.

[github-actions]

☀️   Quality Monitor

   🚦   Tests: 100 % successful (✔️ 293 passed)
   〰️   Line Coverage: 96% (86 missed lines)
   ➰   Branch Coverage: 92% (80 missed branches)
     Mutation Coverage: 90% (114 survived mutations)
     CheckStyle: No warnings
     PMD: No warnings
     SpotBugs: No bugs
   🐛   Error Prone: No bugs
     OWASP Dependency Check: No vulnerabilitys

---

Created by Quality Monitor v1.11.0 (#99404b7). More details are shown in the GitHub Checks Result.