Include hand crafted resources in documentation indexes

[theunrepentantgeek]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Our index pages need to include any hand-crafted types that we add to ASO; without them, the documentation (which we are generating) can't be easily found.

Closes #3054

How does this PR make you feel:

If applicable:

• this PR contains tests

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #3055 (65a6814) into main (52d94c8) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 74.33%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3055      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.27%   54.26%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1379     1379              
  Lines      596286   596347      +61     
==========================================
- Hits       323664   323605      -59     
- Misses     219482   219575      +93     
- Partials    53140    53167      +27     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...peline/create_types_for_backwards_compatibility.go	39.17% <ø> (+0.17%)	⬆️
...ator/internal/config/object_model_configuration.go	71.42% <53.33%> (-1.37%)	⬇️
...ernal/codegen/pipeline/report_resource_versions.go	52.36% <76.92%> (+0.44%)	⬆️
v2/internal/set/set.go	90.24% <100.00%> (+4.03%)	⬆️
...generator/internal/config/configuration_visitor.go	91.22% <100.00%> (+4.95%)	⬆️

... and 29 files with indirect coverage changes

[matthchr]

Overall LGTM. One question is if there's a way for us to detect that somebody has forgotten to include a handcrafted resource in the azure-arm.yaml file?

Doesn't necessarily have to be part of the code generator (in fact in some ways that'd be sorta weird). Maybe some way to write a taskfile target that verifies this?

The more I think about it the more I wonder if we should split the doc generation out into a different tool that does something based more on the filesystem (which would then work more easily for handcrafted resources as they also exist on the filesystem)... something to think about longer term possibly.

[matthchr]

Do we have a way to detect if we've forgotten to add this?

[theunrepentantgeek]

I'm not sure at the moment. I'll give that some thought though.