Major update to docs

[ehsteve]

Still missing some dev documentation.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 95.89% // Head: 95.89% // No change to project coverage :thumbsup:

Coverage data is based on head (78601bb) compared to base (99321ed). Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #41 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 95.89% 95.89% ======================================= Files 13 13 Lines 731 731 ======================================= Hits 701 701 Misses 30 30 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/ddasilva/ccsdspy/pull/41?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Daniel+da+Silva) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [ccsdspy/packet\_types.py](https://codecov.io/gh/ddasilva/ccsdspy/pull/41?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Daniel+da+Silva#diff-Y2NzZHNweS9wYWNrZXRfdHlwZXMucHk=) | `94.44% <ø> (ø)` | | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Daniel+da+Silva). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Daniel+da+Silva)

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ddasilva]

Hey, I think this looks really good. I pulled your branch and built it locally to check it out.

Code formatting.

Some comments (which I can do, just want your feedback). I think in this screenshot want to put the args on multiple lines so it doesn't horizontally scroll.

Developer's guide

This is a great start, I think we should say we aim for >95% coverage, and point out some areas of growth that we want to do. In particular, I think we should list that we want to support additional data formats for packet definitions, and could use bug reports where the provided tooling requires a workaround or in adequate. Anything else you would add?

Changelog

Great idea. I think need to go back and fix the formatting so it matches Restructed text.

[ehsteve]

@ddasilva ready for you to look at it again.

[ddasilva]

Thanks, will look soon, working on proposal this week. By the way, the dot command thats making the CI fail can be installed with apt-get graphviz

[ddasilva]

I pulled it and built it locally. I made a couple changes to the code example formatting and fixed the docs CI. Overall it looks good, and I am ready to merge this and rebuild the prod site if you are.

[ehsteve]

Go for it!