add unknown field check to validate command

[enesonus]

Adds the improvements made at PR crossplane/crossplane#5791 to beta validate command's reference docs for informational purposes.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for crossplane ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	0e2fd9e
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/crossplane/deploys/6685a78418d6e60008282b22
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-790--crossplane.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	1 paths audited Performance: 84 (🔴 down 1 from production) Accessibility: 90 (🔴 down 2 from production) Best Practices: 83 (no change from production) SEO: 93 (no change from production) PWA: 70 (no change from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

---

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

[jbw976]

Thanks for taking the initiative to make a docs update too @enesonus! a couple of suggestions for you to consider 🙇‍♂️

[enesonus]

Thanks for taking the initiative to make a docs update too @enesonus! a couple of suggestions for you to consider 🙇‍♂️

Thanks for the suggestions @jbw976, I updated the changes accordingly.

[jbw976]

ha, looks like my suggestion introduced a Vale error in https://github.com/crossplane/docs/actions/runs/9758986765/job/26934740522?pr=790.

content/master/cli/command-reference.md
 832:[6](https://github.com/crossplane/docs/actions/runs/9758986765/job/26934740522?pr=790#step:5:7)  warning  'additional' is too wordy.  write-good.TooWordy

Vale is intended to help us write in a high quality consistent format, but its rules can be difficult to comply with sometimes 🤓

I think this is the rule that is failing:
https://github.com/crossplane/docs/blob/master/utils/vale/styles/write-good/TooWordy.yml#L17

additional is also mentioned in https://github.com/crossplane/docs/blob/master/utils/vale/styles/Microsoft/ComplexWords.yml#L21, which suggests using more or extra instead. So perhaps to make Vale happy we could just use extra instead of additional here? 🤔

[enesonus]

Yeah I was actually aware of the warning, thought it is Vale's own warning and couldn't find the location to look for alternatives. Thanks for pointing out the guides @jbw976. I changed additional to extra. One question is should I leave it as with extra validation or change it to with extra validations what do you think? I think the latter one sounds better but we dont have more than one extra validation currently so I couldnt decide 😅

[jbw976]

with extra validation sounds good enough to my ears! 👂 ✅

[jbw976]

awesome, this looks great to me now! Thanks @enesonus!!