Alexander Sehr

Moved into `blocked` to not re-discuss it until the hackathon is over

Could be solved (to an extend) by automating it's population (e.g. fetch from parameter file(s)). However, this comes with its own challenges. For the time being we should probably start...

Linked to #1096

Based on discussions: > Not strictly CARML-related. As such a lower-priority feature we could implement at some point in time, if time allows.

Hey @itpropro, I actually brought this up [with the PG](https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/784#issuecomment-1140499904) some time back. Long story short, it seems to be a provider inaccuracy. The API tells you to place the...

Hey @itpropro , I raised the issue in the 'offical' "Missing type validation / inaccuracies" issue [here](https://github.com/Azure/bicep/issues/784#issuecomment-1140499904) (just expand `Microsoft.OperationalInsights/workspaces/savedSearches`). There have also been a couple comments to it underneath.

I'll go ahead and close this issue here as fixing it appears to be outside of CARML's reach and something either the ARM/Bicep PG or the Provider-PG have to fix...

@eriqua do you think we should already remove this implementation from the dependency pipeline, now that the ComputeImage module leverages the new dependencies approach?

Not sure about this. We have the test to make sure our ReadMe's are up to date, but it won't help anybody to publish a new module version just because...

Discussion: The test makes sense, however - we should make sure no new version is published just because a readme was changed. To that end, we should doublecheck if the...