Update progressiveText.jelly with documentation tag

[duemir]

The st:documentation and st:attribute tags are used by Jenkins Development Support plugin for autocomplete and documentation lookup.

I did this quick change in the GitHub editor as much as a conversation starter as the suggestion. There more instances like this, so there is likely more work required. Tags documented like this get a benefit of autocompletion and documentation and deprecated attribute validation from the IntelliJ plugin. The more tags are update with unsupported documentation format the less helpful IntelliJ plugin becomes.

See JENKINS-XXXXX.

Testing done

Proposed changelog entries

• human-readable text

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

Preview Give feedback

1. The Jira issue, if it exists, is well-described.
2. The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
3. There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
4. New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
5. New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
6. New or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
7. For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
8. For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@mention

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

Preview Give feedback

1. There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
2. Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
3. Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
4. Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
5. If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
6. If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, a Jira issue must exist, be a Bug or Improvement, and be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered (see query).

[duemir]

Sure, its flawed and needs to be fixed. But what about content? Does any tool rely on those JSP style comments? Or should I go forward and try and replace all of them with st:documentation/st:attribute?

[timja]

Sure, its flawed and needs to be fixed. But what about content? Does any tool rely on those JSP style comments? Or should I go forward and try and replace all of them with st:documentation/st:attribute?

Not that I'm aware of, content looks good and yes good to use st:documentation etc everywhere

[duemir]

It turned out there were only a few. I addressed the comments and updated the other two tags.

[timja]

Thanks!

I think Alex went through at some point and fixed most of this up.

[A1exKH]

@duemir this PR LGTM.