Improve documentation for input fields

[borisbaldassari]

When trying to setup the Quevee GitHub action, Ankaios had some questions about the actual info to put in there.
Improving the documentation and providing more examples would help. Namely, fields include:

• Requirements URL(s)
• README URL(s)
• Testing URL(s)
• Licences URL(s)
• Documentation URL(s)

[danutza77]

The main point here is to make sure that the expected content of each URL (which will be put in the "manifest.toml") is clear.
The documentation should also clarify the type of file(s) that this content is expected to consist of - better said, what type of files will those URLs point to (*.html, *.md, *.zip, etc.)

[borisbaldassari]

Random notes, partly borrowed from the uProtocol example:

• Licence file should include a list of all licences that this repo uses, as is provided by the cargo build system -- see the example in uProtocol.
• Testing file can be the HTML file as generated by OpenFastTrace, or any file that contains the same information.

[danutza77]

One other difference we've seen thus far between Ankaios and uProtocol in applying Quevee Action is that: Ankaios has a URL for "documentation" while uProtocol doesn't.
To clarify things, "Documentation" means "Project Documentation". "Documentation" doesn't stand for the collection of the OSS Best Practices files (e.g. readme.md, license(s).md, etc, etc).

[AnotherDaniel]

Picking this one up because of #13 - I've added additional metadata to the artifact entities there, specifically each artifact can now have a name, description and arbitrary tags. Would that address this issue?

[borisbaldassari]

Hi @AnotherDaniel, thanks for the offer. It'd be helpful indeed to have more context and inline help.

We still need some documentation, however, and comments in code won't make it. Something like a getting started, so users know what it does, and how to set it up. I'll propose an update soon.

---

[Edit] My apologies, I had not hit the 'Comment' button and this comment was not submitted. D'oh!

[AnotherDaniel]

If this is still relevant, I suggest we just add a sentence or two to the project README?

[borisbaldassari]

This PR under review provides more insights in the README file, indeed. 🙂