Add missing audio_tag, favicon_link_tag, video_tag methods in ActionView helper guide [ci skip]

[akhilgkrishnan]

Detail

This Pull Request adds audio_tag, favicon_link_tag and video_tag in ActionView helper method guide.

Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

• This Pull Request is related to one change. Changes that are unrelated should be opened in separate PRs.
• Commit message has a detailed description of what changed and why. If this PR fixes a related issue include it in the commit message. Ex: [Fix #issue-number]
• Tests are added or updated if you fix a bug or add a feature.
• CHANGELOG files are updated for the changed libraries if there is a behavior change or additional feature. Minor bug fixes and documentation changes should not be included.

[akhilgkrishnan]

@vipulnsward Updated all the requested changes.

[zzak]

Not wanting to be dissuasive here, but I think reproducing documentation that should already exist in the guides is an old habit we should try to avoid. Are these methods already available on api.rubyonrails.org? Can we just link to the appropriate section to "learn more"? (Are types of questions we should be asking ourselves).

Thank you for your work on the docs! 🙇

[vipulnsward]

Not wanting to be dissuasive here, but I think reproducing documentation that should already exist in the guides is an old habit we should try to avoid. Are these methods already available on api.rubyonrails.org? Can we just link to the appropriate section to "learn more"? (Are types of questions we should be asking ourselves).

Sorry, yeah I agree, and was going to follow up with changes myself. There is missing things here that better linked to "Learn more".

@zzak Please feel free to revert if needed, I can send a new change, thanks for the comment 🙇

[akhilgkrishnan]

Not wanting to be dissuasive here, but I think reproducing documentation that should already exist in the guides is an old habit we should try to avoid. Are these methods already available on api.rubyonrails.org? Can we just link to the appropriate section to "learn more"? (Are types of questions we should be asking ourselves).

Thank you for your work on the docs! 🙇

Yes, I agree with you. This is only just an abstract documentation which references to API documentation. WDYT about removing this documentation completely?
cc: @zzak @vipulnsward

[zzak]

I don't think it's worth reverting. Unless we're changing the visibility of something (public/private), then all of this is kind of fluid and we can continue to iterate and improve the documentation as we go. ❤️