chore: document BurnchainConfig parameters

[Jiloc]

Description

Add documentation for all BurnchainConfig parameters

Applicable issues

second step of #5898

Additional info (benefits, drawbacks, caveats)

Checklist

• Test coverage for new or modified code paths
• Changelog is updated
• Required documentation changes (e.g., docs/rpc/openapi.yaml and rpc-endpoints.md for v2 endpoints, event-dispatcher.md for new events)
• New clarity functions have corresponding PR in clarity-benchmarking repo
• New integration test(s) added to bitcoin-tests.yml

[obycode]

I just also commented this on #6000: would it make more sense to have these detailed comments on BurnchainConfigFile and an abbreviated version on BurnchainConfig? The ...File variants are the ones that need the really good documentation. Maybe we should work to merge these two versions of all of these config structs?

[wileyj]

I just also commented this on #6000: would it make more sense to have these detailed comments on BurnchainConfigFile and an abbreviated version on BurnchainConfig? The ...File variants are the ones that need the really good documentation. Maybe we should work to merge these two versions of all of these config structs?

related? #6085

[obycode]

So that these comments can be easily extracted into documentation for the config file, I'd recommend that all references to other fields just use the field name, without the struct prefix, e.g. "[BurnchainConfig::mode]" should just be "mode".

[obycode]

I just also commented this on #6000: would it make more sense to have these detailed comments on BurnchainConfigFile and an abbreviated version on BurnchainConfig? The ...File variants are the ones that need the really good documentation. Maybe we should work to merge these two versions of all of these config structs?

Per discussion in the Nakamoto sync, let's leave the comments as-is for now, and in a separate issue, we will work on merging the two versions of the config structs.

[wileyj]

lgtm

[fdefelici]

LGTM!

just added some minor nits

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.36%. Comparing base (aab7784) to head (ae6e091).
Report is 306 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
stackslib/src/config/mod.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (72.36%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (aab7784) and HEAD (ae6e091). Click for more details.

HEAD has 15 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (aab7784)	HEAD (ae6e091)
	150	135

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           develop    #6005       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage    84.10%   72.36%   -11.74%     
============================================
  Files          528      542       +14     
  Lines       385675   389885     +4210     
  Branches       323      323               
============================================
- Hits        324355   282157    -42198     
- Misses       61312   107720    +46408     
  Partials         8        8               

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
stackslib/src/config/mod.rs	62.50% <0.00%> (-10.88%)	⬇️

... and 311 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 50e304a...ae6e091. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.