Dev fimsframe clean up

[MOshima-PIFSC]

What is the feature?

• few clean up tasks for issue [Developer Issue]: M2 Quality control task list #662

How have you implemented the solution?

• changed .data[["name"]] == fleet_name to .data[["name"]] %in% fleet_name
• added @rdname to methods documentation in fimsframe.R

Does the PR impact any other area of the project, maybe another repo?

[github-actions]

Instructions for code reviewer

Hello reviewer, thanks for taking the time to review this PR!

• Please use this checklist during your review, checking off items that you have verified are complete!
• For PRs that don't make changes to code (e.g., changes to README.md or Github actions workflows), feel free to skip over items on the checklist that are not relevant. Remember it is still important to do a thorough review.
• Then, comment on the pull request with your review indicating where you have questions or changes need to be made before merging.
• Remember to review every line of code you’ve been asked to review, look at the context, make sure you’re improving code health, and compliment developers on good things that they do.
• PR reviews are a great way to learn, so feel free to share your tips and tricks. However, for optional changes (i.e., not required for merging), please include nit: (for nitpicking) before making the suggestion. For example, nit: I prefer using a data.frame() instead of a matrix because...
• Engage with the developer when they respond to comments and check off additional boxes as they become complete so the PR can be merged in when all the tasks are fulfilled. Make it clear when this has been reached by commenting on the PR with something like This PR is now ready to be merged, no changes needed.

Checklist

• The PR is requested to be merged into the appropriate branch (typically main)
• The code is well-designed.
• The functionality is good for the users of the code.
• Any User Interface changes are sensible and look good.
• The code isn’t more complex than it needs to be.
• Code coverage remains high, indicating the new code is tested.
• The developer used clear names for everything.
• Comments are clear and useful, and mostly explain why instead of what.
• Code is appropriately documented (doxygen and roxygen).

[MOshima-PIFSC]

@kellijohnson-NOAA I worked on the two tasks you assigned me. When I was adding the @rdname documentation to the other methods I noticed that the top accessor(?? I think that's what they are called??) functions (get_data to weight_at_age) didn't have any documentation. I wasn't sure if they needed it so I added it but I can remove it if its not necessary. Also, should the get_lengths function and ages functions have the same naming conventions? It looks like they do the same thing just for lengths and ages respectively, so ages could be get_ages or get_lengths could be lengths?

[kellijohnson-NOAA]

Thank you @MOshima-PIFSC 👍 . I added just a few things and ran document() and squashed the commits. The additional features that you mentioned that need fixed are now part of #699 and #700. I will merge this in once the tests have passed.