gemerio/go-gemer: codex/process_codex_block.go; 5 LoC

Found a possible issue in [gemerio/go-gemer](https://www.github.com/gemerio/go-gemer) at [codex/process_codex_block.go](https://github.com/gemerio/go-gemer/blob/884cca9955ec5a9a7d4b4420986a6787e6729345/codex/process_codex_block.go#L26-L30)

Below is the message reported by the analyzer for this snippet of code. Beware that the analyzer only reports the first issue it finds, so please do not limit your consideration to the contents of the below message.

> reference to module is reassigned at line 28

[Click here to see the code in its original context.](https://github.com/gemerio/go-gemer/blob/884cca9955ec5a9a7d4b4420986a6787e6729345/codex/process_codex_block.go#L26-L30)

Click here to show the 5 line(s) of Go which triggered the analyzer.

```go
for _, module := range barecodex.Moduleblocks {
if sha256.Sum256([]byte(fmt.Sprintf("%v", module))) == parentModuleHash {
targetblock = &module
}
}

```

Leave a reaction on this issue to contribute to the project by classifying this instance as a **Bug** :-1:, **Mitigated** :+1:, or **Desirable Behavior** :rocket:
See the descriptions of the classifications [here](https://github.com/github-vet/rangeclosure-findings#how-can-i-help) for more information.

commit ID: 884cca9955ec5a9a7d4b4420986a6787e6729345

Read codex/process_codex_block.go at lines 26-30 and inspect the linked analyzer guidance about range-loop references. Determine whether the reported reassignment is a bug, mitigated, or desirable behavior, then record the appropriate classification reaction as the completed work.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.