test: tighten any types in spec mocks to Mocked<T>

[Ma77Ball]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

• Replace let mockX: any; declarations in 13 active spec files with Mocked<T> from Vitest.
• Replace {...} as any mock-literal casts with as unknown as Mocked<T> (or the appropriate concrete type for component property assignments and partial fixtures).
• Replace seen: any[] accumulators in preset.service.spec.ts with the actual stream event types.
• Skip the two pre-existing out-of-scope patterns: (svc as any).privateField private-member access and as any as joint.dia.Link JointJS partial-mocks.

Any related issues, documentation, or discussions?

Closes: #4867

How was this PR tested?

• tsc --project src/tsconfig.spec.json --noEmit passes with no errors.
• No runtime test behavior changed — only type annotations and casts.

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Co-authored with Claude Opus 4.7 in compliance with ASF

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 43.36%. Comparing base (c93c8f7) to head (eb95c45).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5008      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     43.35%   43.36%   +0.01%     
- Complexity     2182     2183       +1     
============================================
  Files          1035     1035              
  Lines         38818    38814       -4     
  Branches       4061     4061              
============================================
+ Hits          16830    16833       +3     
+ Misses        20932    20926       -6     
+ Partials       1056     1055       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	39.53% <ø> (-0.35%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 410c700
agent-service	33.72% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 410c700
amber	43.23% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 410c700
computing-unit-managing-service	0.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 410c700
config-service	0.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 410c700
file-service	32.18% <ø> (+0.08%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 410c700
frontend	35.17% <ø> (ø)
python	88.90% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 410c700
workflow-compiling-service	47.72% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 410c700

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[chenlica]

@mengw15 Please review this PR.

[mengw15]

@Ma77Ball Does this PR completely finish the issue? I saw in the issue it says "~80 remain". If not, maybe we want to change the "Closes issue"

[mengw15]

LGTM

[Ma77Ball]

@Ma77Ball Does this PR completely finish the issue? I saw in the issue it says "~80 remain". If not, maybe we want to change the "Closes issue"

@mengw15 Yes, this does finish the issue. The remaining spec files use any in a way that falls in the Out of Scope section of the issue.