doc: add API parameter syntax examples for nodeofferings and nodetemp…

[chunkyen]

Description

The API documentation for createKubernetesCluster does not include syntax examples for the nodeofferings and nodetemplates parameters, making it difficult for users to specify different service offerings and templates for control vs worker nodes.

This PR adds usage examples to the @Parameter descriptions, following the same inline example pattern already used by the cniconfigdetails parameter in the same file.

Examples added

nodeofferings:
nodeofferings[0].node="control"&nodeofferings[0].offering=""&
nodeofferings[1].node="worker"&nodeofferings[1].offering=""

nodetemplates:
nodetemplates[0].node="control"&nodetemplates[0].template=""&
nodetemplates[1].node="worker"&nodetemplates[1].template=""

Context

Discussion: #13395

Thanks to @Pearl1594 for providing the syntax and @DaanHoogland for guiding the contribution process.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Documentation change (API parameter descriptions)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist

• Code formatted according to project style
• Self-reviewed the changes
• No new warnings generated
• Documentation updated (this IS the documentation update)

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache CloudStack community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
Here are some useful points:

• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (raise doc PR at https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-documentation)
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from the committers.
• Pay attention to the quality of your code, ensure tests are passing and your PR doesn't have conflicts.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Issues, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the CloudStack Coding Conventions.
  Apache CloudStack is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@cloudstack.apache.org (https://cloudstack.apache.org/mailing-lists.html)
  Slack: https://apachecloudstack.slack.com/

[DaanHoogland]

clgtm

[DaanHoogland]

note: text only

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 19.65%. Comparing base (121d931) to head (2afb902).
⚠️ Report is 69 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##              main   #13902       +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     3.41%   19.65%   +16.23%     
- Complexity       0    19792    +19792     
============================================
  Files          487     6368     +5881     
  Lines        41867   574889   +533022     
  Branches      7912    70353    +62441     
============================================
+ Hits          1429   112975   +111546     
- Misses       40238   449643   +409405     
- Partials       200    12271    +12071     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.41% <ø> (ø)
unittests	20.92% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[weizhouapache]

this PR breaks the simulator CI:

[shwstppr]

I'm concerned about why we merged a PR that was visibly failing all Simulator CI jobs. Not sure maybe we should look into repository rulesets for branch protection

[weizhouapache]

this PR breaks the simulator CI:

fixed by #14044

[weizhouapache]

I'm concerned about why we merged a PR that was visibly failing all Simulator CI jobs. Not sure maybe we should look into repository rulesets for branch protection

good idea !

[DaanHoogland]

I'm concerned about why we merged a PR that was visibly failing all Simulator CI jobs. Not sure maybe we should look into repository rulesets for branch protection

good idea !

I am in favour in principle, but am a bit worried that our many false positives are going to impede our (already not so great) velocity.
In this case the change was text only and the build passed. We have a usually failing Sonar check and also coverage is not passing. So what will be the requirements that we do impose?
¿

• rat
• lint/pre-commit
• build
• codeql
• test-matrix
  ?

[weizhouapache]

I'm concerned about why we merged a PR that was visibly failing all Simulator CI jobs. Not sure maybe we should look into repository rulesets for branch protection

good idea !

I am in favour in principle, but am a bit worried that our many false positives are going to impede our (already not so great) velocity. In this case the change was text only and the build passed. We have a usually failing Sonar check and also coverage is not passing. So what will be the requirements that we do impose? ¿

• rat
• lint/pre-commit
• build
• codeql
• test-matrix
  ?

we can start with a minimum set

• Build / build (pull_request)
• License Check / build (pull_request)
• pre-commit / Run pre-commit (pull_request)
• Simulator CI / build (pull_request)
• UI Build / build (pull_request)