docs(x/data): update specification

[ryanchristo]

Description

Closes: #571

This pull request updates the data module specification to reflect the latest version.

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct docs: prefix in the PR title
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the documentation writing guidelines
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct docs: prefix in the PR title
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• confirmed that this PR only changes documentation
• reviewed content for consistency
• reviewed content for thoroughness
• reviewed content for spelling and grammar
• tested instructions (if applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #673 (a96a661) into master (63eb64d) will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head a96a661 differs from pull request most recent head ef73af5. Consider uploading reports for the commit ef73af5 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #673      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   74.74%   74.80%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         118      118              
  Lines       19542    19542              
==========================================
+ Hits        14606    14618      +12     
+ Misses       3963     3947      -16     
- Partials      973      977       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
experimental-codecov	74.90% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
stable-codecov	67.65% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️

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

[robert-zaremba]

Similar to: #633 (review)

Let's simplify the acceptance tests

[ryanchristo]

Similar to: #633 (review)

Let's simplify the acceptance tests

I don't think changing the language is necessary. I think we should follow the standard format for acceptance tests: https://openclassrooms.com/en/courses/4544611-write-agile-documentation-user-stories-acceptance-tests/4810081-write-acceptance-tests

[clevinson]

I don't think changing the language is necessary. I think we should follow the standard format for acceptance tests: https://openclassrooms.com/en/courses/4544611-write-agile-documentation-user-stories-acceptance-tests/4810081-write-acceptance-tests

I'm actually not sure from reading this that the "if..then" is part of the standard format. When I read this it makes me think that the "if...then" statements they provide are only to help one generate a GIVEN...WHEN...THEN style acceptance test. I think these are all fine to leave in in the current UATs. In the future I do agree that they can be simpler (5-10 word) summaries of what the condition is. But I don't think this is really anything worth bike shedding over.

[clevinson]

Thx @ryanchristo !

I noticed that the pages weren't actually visible in the table of contents, or in the Data Module overview page. So I added a few commits to fix that. Otherwise lgtm 🎉 !

I think its good for these to be visible even though they're not available on mainnet (and just added a note abt only being available in experimental builds in the data module overview page).

[ryanchristo]

Thanks @clevinson. Opened #711 to further discuss and track updates to format.

[technicallyty]

👍🏻