Change bridge_name to name and bridge_params to parameters

[azeey]

🦟 Bug fix

Summary

I'm proposing that we change the attribute names because "bridge_" in the attributes seems redundant. The change I propose also alignes the attributes with the attribute names of Node (<node>), which are name and parameters.

Example:
Before:

RosGzBridge(
    bridge_name="bridge1",
    config_file=[FindPackageShare("ros_gz_sim_demos"), "/config/air_pressure.yaml"],
    use_composition=False,
    bridge_params=[{"qos_overrides./air_pressure.publisher.reliability": "best_effort"}],
)

After:

RosGzBridge(
    name="bridge1",
    config_file=[FindPackageShare("ros_gz_sim_demos"), "/config/air_pressure.yaml"],
    use_composition=False,
    parameters=[{"qos_overrides./air_pressure.publisher.reliability": "best_effort"}],
)

#600 changed name to bridge_name, but I'm not sure why that was necessary. @Amronos?

Checklist

• Signed all commits for DCO
• Added tests
• Updated documentation (as needed)
• Updated migration guide (as needed)
• Consider updating Python bindings (if the library has them)
• codecheck passed (See contributing)
• All tests passed (See test coverage)
• While waiting for a review on your PR, please help review another open pull request to support the maintainers

Note to maintainers: Remember to use Squash-Merge and edit the commit message to match the pull request summary while retaining Signed-off-by messages.

[Amronos]

#600 changed name to bridge_name, but I'm not sure why that was necessary. @Amronos?

If I remember correctly, it was to differentiate between entity_name and bridge_name in https://github.com/gazebosim/ros_gz/blob/ros2/ros_gz_sim/launch/ros_gz_spawn_model.launch.py, and then I had decided to change it throughout for consistency.

[azeey]

I see. I think it makes sense to have bridge_name as input in https://github.com/gazebosim/ros_gz/blob/ros2/ros_gz_sim/launch/ros_gz_spawn_model.launch.py to differentiate it from other names, but I would prefer to keep the attribute of the RosGzBridge action itself as name since it's pretty clear from usage that it is the name of the bridge. i.e, in RosGzBridge(name="bridge1") or <ros_gz_bridge name="bridge1"> , the name attribute is not ambiguous that it belongs to RosGzBridge.