feat(contracts): declare expected security platform types on expectations (#313)

[SamuelHassine]

Goal

Closes #313.

Add an optional expectation_expected_security_platform_types field and a SecurityPlatformType enum (EDR, XDR, SIEM, SOAR, NDR, ISPM, LLM_FIREWALL, AI_GATEWAY) to the contract Expectation dataclass.

Why

On OpenAEV, technical expectations (DETECTION / PREVENTION / VULNERABILITY) are pre-seeded with a pending result for every connected security platform, so the target-results view lists all of them. Letting a contract declare which security platform TYPES are expected to fulfil an expectation lets the platform focus the technical results on the relevant platforms only.

Behaviour

• The field is optional and defaults to an empty list.
• Empty list means any security platform (unchanged behaviour); typically empty for MANUAL expectations.
• It serializes on both availableExpectations and the derived predefinedExpectations.

Changes

• pyoaev/contracts/contract_config.py: SecurityPlatformType enum + expectation_expected_security_platform_types field on Expectation.
• Tests for default-empty and serialization on both arrays.

No manual version bump: the version is bumped automatically by the release process.

Test plan

• pytest test/contracts/ passes (6 tests).
• black / isort clean.
• Enum values verified against SecurityPlatform.SECURITY_PLATFORM_TYPE in openaev-model and the field name against the expectation_expected_security_platform_types JsonProperty on the framework Expectation form.

This is the blocking library change for the platform + injectors rework.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR extends the contracts model to let an Expectation declare which security platform types (e.g., EDR/XDR/SIEM) are expected to fulfill it, enabling the OpenAEV platform to scope which connected platforms should be considered for technical expectations.

Changes:

• Added SecurityPlatformType enum and expectation_expected_security_platform_types field to the Expectation dataclass.
• Added tests covering default-empty behavior and JSON serialization on both availableExpectations and derived predefinedExpectations.
• Bumped pyoaev.__version__ to 2.260720.0.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
pyoaev/contracts/contract_config.py	Introduces SecurityPlatformType and adds the new Expectation field with a default empty list.
test/contracts/test_contract_expectations.py	Adds unit tests validating defaulting and serialization for the new field.
pyoaev/__init__.py	Version bump to ship the new contract surface area.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[SamuelHassine]

Review-and-fix pass complete:

• Independent review done against the platform counterparts: the SecurityPlatformType values match SecurityPlatform.SECURITY_PLATFORM_TYPE in openaev-model exactly (EDR, XDR, SIEM, SOAR, NDR, ISPM, LLM_FIREWALL, AI_GATEWAY), and the field name matches the expectation_expected_security_platform_types JsonProperty on the framework Expectation form, so the wire contract lines up. The default_factory list default is correct (no shared mutable default), serialization propagates to both availableExpectations and the derived predefinedExpectations, and the version bump is picked up by pyproject dynamic versioning.
• Addressed both Copilot comments in 4bc78b6: the SecurityPlatformType docstring and the Expectation field comment now cover all technical expectation types (DETECTION / PREVENTION / VULNERABILITY) instead of only detection/prevention. Both threads replied to and resolved.
• Verified locally: pytest test/contracts/ passes (6 tests), black and isort clean. All CI checks are green on the new head, both commits are signed, the PR is linked to feat(contracts): declare expected security platform types on expectations #313 and the title matches the repository convention.

Note: I cannot approve this PR since I am its author - it needs an approving review from another maintainer to unblock merge.

[SamuelHassine]

Dropped the manual version bump in a58b99d - the version is bumped automatically by the release process, so pyoaev/init.py is back to 2.260717.0 and the PR description was updated accordingly. CI is green on the new head.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

[SamuelHassine]

Second review-and-fix pass complete:

• Addressed the new Copilot comment in 5d1d17f: the test helper only passes expectation_expected_security_platform_types when the caller declares it, so test_expected_security_platform_types_default_empty now exercises the real dataclass default_factory path instead of an explicit empty list. Thread replied to and resolved.
• No other findings on re-review: the diff is otherwise unchanged since the previous pass (enum values and field name verified against the openaev-model / framework counterparts, manual version bump already dropped in a58b99d).
• Verified locally: pytest test/contracts/ passes (6 tests), black and isort clean. All CI checks are green on the new head and all 4 commits are signed.

Still pending: an approving review from another maintainer (I cannot approve my own PR).