[DOCS] Reorganize Checkpoint Section

[kwcanuck]

Description

Reorganized the Checkpoint section to meet the requirements specified in ticket DOC-553.

The following changes have been implemented:

• The topic title Pass an in-memory DataFrame to a Checkpoint was updated to Validate Checkpoints with Expectations and data

• Removed Run a Checkpoint to validate data from the TOC and relevant landing page

• Moved Deploy a scheduled Checkpoint with cron below Manage Checkpoints and updated the relevant landing pages

• Moved Use Data Docs URLs in custom Validation Actions below Configure Actions and updated the relevant landing pages

Definition of done

• PR title is prefixed with one of: [BUGFIX], [FEATURE], [DOCS], [MAINTENANCE], [CONTRIB]
• Appropriate tests and docs have been updated

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for niobium-lead-7998 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	aef73ae
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/niobium-lead-7998/deploys/6499cbf698e5d7000812cdac
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-8182--niobium-lead-7998.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[ghost]

👇 Click on the image for a new way to code review

Legend

[Rachel-Reverie]

I think it would be more accurate to say "Validate data with Expectations and Checkpoints." But the guide we would actually want in place of this one is: "Validate data and Expectations passed to a Checkpoint at runtime."

[Rachel-Reverie]

I think we should make a note to rework this document fully. As it stands, the process can be applied to more than just in-memory data.

[kwcanuck]

@Rachel-Reverie I have updated the topic title as suggested. Who would be the SME that could help with the content rework? Do you prefer to take it on? If so, should we leave this PR open?

[Rachel-Reverie]

I suggested a change to one of the guide titles. Technically, we use a Checkpoint to Validate data against Expectations; the Checkpoint is run, but not "validated." As a more general note, I think we should flag that doc for a full rework, since it is partially redundant to the others, and potentially lends itself to misleading conclusions about how to use Checkpoints with runtime parameters.

Otherwise, LGTM. Approving so I'm not blocking if the title update is implemented.