Fix AOSD2 export

[GothHans]

When trying to upload the AOSD 2.0 file generated with ORT to the AOSD platform we encountered some problems.

After always creating a default "part", including empty fields (that where marked as optional but seem to be necessary) and removing hash algorithms other than SHA256 the file can now be uploaded to the Audi AOSD platform.

[sschuberth]

Thanks for these changes @GothHans. A while ago I receiced the specs for AOSD 2.1 from Audi support, wheres ORT currently is implemented against spec version 2.0. So far, I didn't have the change to look into 2.0 vs 2.1 changes, but I'll do so in the context of your changes.

Do you happen to know whether your upload is expected to be in AOSD 2.0 or 2.1 format?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 67.93%. Comparing base (1e58026) to head (b572542).
Report is 16 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #9452      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     67.97%   67.93%   -0.04%     
+ Complexity     1291     1289       -2     
============================================
  Files           249      249              
  Lines          8792     8792              
  Branches        913      913              
============================================
- Hits           5976     5973       -3     
- Misses         2431     2433       +2     
- Partials        385      386       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
funTest-docker	64.82% <ø> (-0.16%)	⬇️
test	35.75% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests
• JS Bundle Analysis - Avoid shipping oversized bundles

[sschuberth]

Do you happen to know whether your upload is expected to be in AOSD 2.0 or 2.1 format?

Nevermind, looks like AOSD 2.1 is in preview state still, so it should be AOSD 2.0.

[GothHans]

@sschuberth Currently the change to 2.1 is still ongoing. For new projects they suggest to use 2.1, but there is a converter that can convert files form 2.0 to 2.1 format (files can be converted on request, but the converter is not availabe for external use yet).

The structure of the 2.1 is significantly different from the 2.0 format. (They claim that 2.1 is the less complex format.)
We found it easyer to get the 2.0 to work, based on your previous implementation.
If you want to have a look into the 2.1 format, I could test if it works.

[sschuberth]

The structure of the 2.1 is significantly different from the 2.0 format.

True, that's what I've figured from looking at the 2.1 schema.

If you want to have a look into the 2.1 format, I could test if it works.

Let's first try to get 2.0 fully working, and add 2.1 support once it's finalized.

@GothHans there are a few issues with your PR that cause CI checks to fail. However, it's probably easier if I simply do these changes for you as you've luckily "Allow edits from maintainers" enabled.

[sschuberth]

Merging despite the unrelated VulnerableCodeFunTest failure.

[sschuberth]

Thanks for you contribution @GothHans! It will be included in the ORT release for this Thursday.