docs: added field description to enhance user-exp for S2S CRNs fields usage

[vbontempi]

exposed explicit existing_mq_capacity_crn input to enhance user experience (current mapping existing_mq_capacity_crn from mq_s2s_policy_target_crn is misleading)
Mapped explicit output of MQ DA capacity_crn to mq_s2s_policy_target_crn version input

Description

Release required?

• No release
• Patch release (x.x.X)
• Minor release (x.X.x)
• Major release (X.x.x)

Release notes content

exposed virtual existing_mq_capacity_crn input of MQ DA
Mapped explicit output of MQ DA capacity_crn to mq_s2s_policy_target_crn version input

Run the pipeline

If the CI pipeline doesn't run when you create the PR, the PR requires a user with GitHub collaborators access to run the pipeline.

Run the CI pipeline when the PR is ready for review and you expect tests to pass. Add a comment to the PR with the following text:

/run pipeline

Checklist for reviewers

• If relevant, a test for the change is included or updated with this PR.
• If relevant, documentation for the change is included or updated with this PR.

For mergers

• Use a conventional commit message to set the release level. Follow the guidelines.
• Include information that users need to know about the PR in the commit message. The commit message becomes part of the GitHub release notes.
• Use the Squash and merge option.

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[vbontempi]

@jor2 could you please review again? I modified the code from the previous commit
@daniel-butler-irl could you please review the mapping I changed on ibm_catalog.json? it doesn't seem to cause any issue, I manually tested it but I am not sure it would cause any unexpected behaviour

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline

[ocofaigh]

@vbontempi Whats the difference between mq_s2s_policy_target_crn and the new virtual input existing_mq_capacity_crn you added? Seems like a duplicate to me?

[ocofaigh]

why would this say "Deployable architecture"? It doesn't have to come from a DA? oh wait I see what your trying to say... thinking about this....

[ocofaigh]

The current logic will:

Take the value of existing_mq_capacity_crn virtual input, pass it to MQ DA, and then map it to the Ease4J input mq_s2s_policy_target_crn. We are creating a whole extra layer of mapping here that is not needed right?
Could we not avoid this by doing this:

• Remove the virtual input
• Make mq_s2s_policy_target_crn required, but rename it with a display_name existing_mq_capacity_crn and remove its default value and mark it as required. This would force the user to enter a value, but that value could be null if MQ was not in the mix.

EG:

{
  "display_name": "existing_mq_capacity_crn",
  "key": "mq_s2s_policy_target_crn",
  "required": true,
  "default_value": "__NOT_SET__",
  "description": "MQ on Cloud capacity service instance CRN. Only required if deploying the Cloud automation for MQ on Cloud deployable architecture. Set to `null` is not deploying this."
},

[vbontempi]

/run pipeline