Add doc for the latest "MacCatalyst is superset of iOS" updates

[buyaa-n]

Summary

Recently we updated the Platform Compatibility Analyzer to support a relationship of "MacCatalyst is a superset of IOS" using SupportedOSPlatformGuard attributes on the OperatingSystem method. We need to update the doc accordingly

Related PR: dotnet/roslyn-analyzers#5266

  // Macatalyst is a superset of iOS therefore supported on iOS and MacCatalyst  
  [SupportedOSPlatform("iOS")]
  public void ApiOnlySupportedOnIOSAndMacCatalyst() { }

  // Does not imply iOS, only supported on MacCatalyst
  [SupportedOSPlatform("MacCatalyst")]
  public void ApiOnlySupportedOnMacCatalyst() { }

  [SupportedOSPlatform("iOS")] // Supported on iOS and MacCatalyst  
  [UnsupportedOSPlatform("MacCatalyst")] // Removes implied MacCatalyst support
  public void ApiOnlySupportedOnIos() { }

  // Unsupported on iOS and MacCatalyst  
  [UnsupportedOSPlatform("iOS")]
  public void ApiUnsupportedOnIOSAndMacCatalyst();

  // Does not imply iOS, only unsupported on MacCatalyst
  [UnsupportedOSPlatform("MacCatalyst")]
  public void ApiUnsupportedOnMacCatalyst() { }

  [UnsupportedOSPlatform("iOS")] // Unsupported on iOS and MacCatalyst  
  [SupportedOSPlatform("MacCatalyst")] // Removes implied MacCatalyst unsupport
  public void ApiUnsupportedOnIos() { }

[gewarren]

It might also be good to include a table showing the support combinations. I'll see if I can come up with one.

[buyaa-n]

It might also be good to include a table showing the support combinations. I'll see if I can come up with one.

Thank you, i have updated the table bit and applied with all other suggestions

[jeffhandley]

I left one comment where I wasn't sure if the spacing/indentation was correct. Beyond that, the only feedback I have is that we're using a few different terms:

1. Related
2. Superset
3. Parent/Child

If we're going to use parent/child, then "related" is a good word that refers to the relationship between parent/child. But I don't know that parent/child is the most intuitive or helpful term for the concept; I think superset/subset is more informative of the direction of the relationship.

If we had superset/subset instead of parent/child, then I'm not sure that "related" is best, but I also can't think of a good replacement.

[buyaa-n]

If we're going to use parent/child, then "related" is a good word that refers to the relationship between parent/child. But I don't know that parent/child is the most intuitive or helpful term for the concept; I think superset/subset is more informative of the direction of the relationship.

If we had superset/subset instead of parent/child, then I'm not sure that "related" is best, but I also can't think of a good replacement.

Right, also i noticed that we used parent/child for nested attributes, like Assembly level attributes are parent for Type/API level attributes, etc. Therefore i updated the parent/child with superset/subset and instead related attributes used attributes relation. Please take another look

[gewarren]

I left some suggestions in a PR since that was easier than line by line suggestions. buyaa-n#2

[buyaa-n]

I left some suggestions in a PR since that was easier than line by line suggestions. buyaa-n#2

Thank you @gewarren that is great, sorry for the late reply, the notification was lost within my emails, I just merged your PR.