Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
88 lines (63 loc) · 7.95 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

88 lines (63 loc) · 7.95 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for quick/nimble

Mitigation Strategy: Rigorous Test Isolation with Setup/Teardown (Nimble-Specific Aspects)

Description:

  1. beforeEach and afterEach for Nimble State: Within beforeEach and afterEach blocks, specifically address any Nimble-related state. This primarily involves ensuring that any expectations set up in one test don't leak into another. While Nimble doesn't have explicit global state itself, the effects of its matchers (especially asynchronous ones) can linger if not properly handled.
  2. Resetting Mock Objects Used with Nimble: If you're using a mocking framework in conjunction with Nimble (e.g., using Nimble to assert on mock behavior), ensure that your mocks are reset or verified within the beforeEach/afterEach blocks. This prevents state from one test (e.g., a mock expectation) from affecting subsequent tests. This is crucial because Nimble's matchers are often used to verify the behavior of these mocks.
  3. Careful beforeSuite and afterSuite Usage: Use beforeSuite and afterSuite sparingly, and only when absolutely necessary for performance reasons. If used, meticulously document what they set up and tear down, and ensure they don't create any dependencies between test suites. These are less directly related to Nimble than beforeEach/afterEach, but still important for overall test isolation.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Lack of Test Isolation (State Leakage): (Severity: High) - Prevents lingering effects of Nimble matchers (especially asynchronous ones) from affecting subsequent tests.
  • Unintended Side Effects from Asynchronous Tests: (Severity: Medium) - Helps contain the side effects by ensuring a clean slate for each test, even if asynchronous operations are involved.

Impact:

  • Lack of Test Isolation: Risk reduced significantly (80-90%). Tests become much more reliable.
  • Unintended Side Effects: Risk reduced moderately (40-50%).

Currently Implemented:

  • Partially implemented in AuthenticationTests.swift (basic setup/teardown).
  • Fully implemented in DatabaseTests.swift (using transactions).

Missing Implementation:

  • UserProfileTests.swift - Missing comprehensive setup/teardown, especially regarding mock object resets.
  • NetworkServiceTests.swift - Needs more robust cleanup of mock network responses used with Nimble assertions.

Mitigation Strategy: Data Sanitization in Test Output (Nimble-Specific Aspects)

Description:

  1. Custom Nimble Matchers for Sensitive Data: Create custom Nimble matchers specifically designed to handle sensitive data types. These matchers should:
    • Perform the necessary comparisons or assertions.
    • Crucially, redact or mask the sensitive data in their failure messages. For example, a custom matcher for passwords might display "********" instead of the actual password, even if the comparison fails. This is the core Nimble-specific aspect.
  2. Review Existing Matcher Usage: Examine all uses of standard Nimble matchers (like equal, contain, etc.) to identify any instances where they might be used with sensitive data. Replace these with custom, sanitizing matchers where necessary.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Data Leakage in Test Output: (Severity: High) - Prevents sensitive data from being exposed in test logs or reports due to Nimble's failure messages.

Impact:

  • Data Leakage: Risk reduced significantly (90-95%) if implemented comprehensively.

Currently Implemented:

  • None.

Missing Implementation:

  • This is a major gap. No custom matchers exist for redacting sensitive data. This needs to be addressed across all test suites.

Mitigation Strategy: Precise Asynchronous Expectations and Timeouts (Nimble-Specific Aspects)

Description:

  1. Specific toEventually and waitUntil Conditions: When using Nimble's toEventually and waitUntil matchers, ensure the conditions you're waiting for are extremely specific. Avoid vague or overly broad conditions that could be satisfied by unintended side effects. This is about how you use Nimble's asynchronous features.
  2. Appropriate Timeouts with toEventually and waitUntil: Always use a timeout with toEventually and waitUntil. Start with short timeouts (e.g., 1-2 seconds) during development. Increase timeouts only if absolutely necessary, and document the reason. This is directly tied to Nimble's API.
  3. Avoid Nested waitUntil (Nimble Context): Be extremely cautious when nesting waitUntil blocks within Nimble tests. This can lead to complex and unpredictable behavior. If nesting is unavoidable, thoroughly review the logic and ensure proper timeouts and cleanup within the context of Nimble's execution.
  4. Prefer Nimble's toEventually over raw waitUntil when possible: When testing asynchronous code that produces a value, expect(...).toEventually(equal(...)) is often clearer and more robust than using waitUntil directly. toEventually handles the polling and timeout logic for you, making your tests more concise and less prone to errors.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Unintended Side Effects from Asynchronous Tests: (Severity: Medium) - Reduces the likelihood of tests hanging or having unexpected side effects due to Nimble's asynchronous handling.
  • Lack of Test Isolation (State Leakage): (Severity: Medium) - Indirectly helps by making asynchronous tests using Nimble more predictable.

Impact:

  • Unintended Side Effects: Risk reduced significantly (60-70%).
  • Lack of Test Isolation: Risk reduced moderately (30-40%).

Currently Implemented:

  • Timeouts are used in most asynchronous tests using Nimble, but they may not be optimal.

Missing Implementation:

  • NetworkServiceTests.swift - Some asynchronous tests using waitUntil have long timeouts and could be made more precise, potentially using toEventually.
  • Need a systematic review of all asynchronous tests using Nimble to ensure expectations are specific and timeouts are appropriate.

Mitigation Strategy: Correct Matcher Usage and Review (Nimble-Specific)

Description:

  1. Nimble Documentation Mastery: Ensure all developers have a thorough understanding of the Nimble documentation, paying specific attention to the nuances of each matcher (e.g., the difference between equal, beIdenticalTo, beCloseTo, etc.).
  2. Code Reviews (Nimble Focus): During code reviews, explicitly check for the correct usage of Nimble matchers. Verify that the chosen matcher is appropriate for the assertion being made and that it's being used with the correct parameters. This is about reviewing the use of Nimble's API.
  3. Meta-Testing (Nimble Matchers): For critical or complex custom Nimble matchers, consider writing tests specifically for the matcher itself. This involves intentionally creating scenarios where the matcher should pass and fail, to ensure it behaves as expected. This is the most direct way to test Nimble-specific code.

Threats Mitigated:

  • Incorrect Matcher Usage: (Severity: Medium) - Reduces the risk of tests passing when they should fail, or failing when they should pass, due to incorrect use of Nimble's matchers.

Impact:

  • Incorrect Matcher Usage: Risk reduced significantly (70-80%) with thorough documentation review and code reviews focused on Nimble.

Currently Implemented:

  • Code reviews are standard practice.

Missing Implementation:

  • No specific focus on Nimble matcher usage during code reviews. This needs to be explicitly added to the review checklist.
  • No meta-testing of custom Nimble matchers is currently performed.