Use a consistent format for roles table notes in API docs

[will-gant]

Some tables had notes in the first column, while others had a second 'notes' column that was separate.

Also adds missing table headers for roles tables that have notes (usually marking a role as 'Experimental') , as the absence of these is currently preventing the second column from rendering altogether.

• I have reviewed the contributing guide

• I have viewed, signed, and submitted the Contributor License Agreement

• I have made this pull request to the main branch

• I have run all the unit tests using bundle exec rake

• I have run CF Acceptance Tests

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ Will Gant (8afe469)

[sweinstein22]

Hi @will-gant , thanks for the PR! One minor thing, it looks like there's still a bit of a discrepancy in the changes - some have the heading 'Role' while others have the heading 'Roles'. I think 'Role' makes more sense, given that each row pertains to a single role rather than a set of roles. Would you mind adjusting the ones included in this PR so that they're consistent?

Additionally rebasing the branch against main should resolve the unit test failures that are being seen in the github actions

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ Will Gant (8afe469, f374a08)

[will-gant]

Change made. Thanks for the feedback :)

Sorry, I'm new at this - I can't see which unit test failure you're referring to. I also have a separate open PR, and that one does have failing unit tests (which I'm looking at now). Were you perhaps referring to those?

[will-gant]

Ok I've just rebased this off of main

[sweinstein22]

Thanks for making those changes @will-gant!

To explain my unit tests comment - we have automated Github actions that run against PRs, which includes unit tests run against mysql and postgres. Generally we want all the checks passing before we'll merge in a PR. They were failing on this PR, although as this is just a docs change it was pretty clear the failures didn't have to do with your work. Just checked and it looks like rebasing off main on your other PR worked as well.

Along those same lines, I am seeing a rubocop and unit test failures on another PR you submitted, I'll comment there.

[will-gant]

Thanks for explaining and merging!