Use modules instead of moduleInstances.values() to access modules

[PoTheMagicDragon]

Type of change

• Bug fix
• New feature

Description

A rework of #5026 due to mangled git history

Related issues

N/A

How Has This Been Tested?

Running an instance and making sure that modules load correctly

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project.
• I have added comments to my code in more complex areas.
• I have tested the code in both development and production environments.

[RacoonDog]

rather than calling

if (modules.removeIf(module1 -> {
    if (module1.name.equals(module.name)) ...
})) {
    getGroup(...).remove(...);
}

if (moduleInstances.values().removeIf(module1 -> {
    if (module1.name.equals(module.name)) ...
})) {
    getGroup(...).remove(...);
}

it should be safe to assume that, since the moduleInstances map should always be a subset of modules, we can simplify it as so:

AtomicReference<Module> removedModule = new AtomicReference<>();
if (modules.removeIf(module1 -> {
    if (module1.name.equals(module.name)) {
        removedModule.set(module1);
        module1.settings.unregisterColorSettings();

        return true;
    }

    return false;
})) {
    moduleInstances.remove(removedModule.getClass(), removedModule);
    getGroup(removedModule.get().category).remove(removedModule.get());
}

[PoTheMagicDragon]

Good point. I copied what you suggested, but changed

    moduleInstances.remove(removedModule.getClass(), removedModule);

to

    moduleInstances.remove(removedModule.getClass(), removedModule.get());