Enhance common module code documentation

[Ygnas]

Issue link

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-13958

What changes have been made

Enhanced common module code documentation

Verification steps

Checks

• I've made sure the tests are passing.
• Testing Strategy
  • Unit tests
  • Manual tests
  • Testing is not required for this change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.12%. Comparing base (1f026b8) to head (c2761cd).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #736   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.12%   94.12%           
=======================================
  Files          36       36           
  Lines        2417     2417           
=======================================
  Hits         2275     2275           
  Misses        142      142           

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

[Bobbins228]

/lgtm

[ChristianZaccaria]

I'm making a few changes in this repo's settings:

• We are dropping the merge queue feature as it seems it's not properly maintained with major issues found unresolved for over a year.
• One benefit seen from merge queue is that it ensures PRs are tested against the target branch. Since we won't be using this feature, I've enabled "Require branches to be up to date before merging" GitHub feature in this repo. By enabling this, all PRs will require to rebase before they can be merged and this way ensure code stability and integration.

I'll have a PR up to properly streamline our processes, in the meantime, we need to add the e2e label to trigger the e2e tests.

[ChristianZaccaria]

Great work!

Just to confirm, do we want to cover code documentation on only the public functions in the common module?

[Ygnas]

Great work!

Just to confirm, do we want to cover code documentation on only the public functions in the common module?

It could cover the private ones as well, but I don't see any private functions appear in the sphinx documentation.

[ChristianZaccaria]

@Ygnas Yeah that's what I thought as well. Perhaps, the private functions can continue to have simple comments while the public functions include the enhanced code documentation for sphynx.

[ChristianZaccaria]

/lgtm

[KPostOffice]

looks good, a couple of comments

[KPostOffice]

/lgtm

[Bobbins228]

/lgtm /approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Bobbins228, KPostOffice

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [Bobbins228,KPostOffice]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment