Update Scan tests and mock server usage

[hahwul]

Revise the usage of the mock server in Scan tests and enhance test coverage by adding cases for reflected parameters and the initializeSpinner function.

[gemini-code-assist]

Hello @hahwul, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

Summary of Changes

This pull request focuses on improving the scan tests by revising the mock server usage and enhancing test coverage. It adds new test cases for reflected parameters and includes a test for the initializeSpinner function. The changes primarily affect pkg/scanning/scan_test.go.

Highlights

• Reflected Parameter Tests: Added new test cases to cover scenarios with reflected parameters, specifically 'inJS reflected parameter' in both URL query and data contexts.
• Mock Server Update: The mock server used in the Scan tests has been updated to mockServerForScanTest().
• Scan Test Enhancements: Modified existing scan tests to use 'query' instead of 'param' in the target URL and added data to the blind xss test case.
• Initialize Spinner Test: Added a new test case, Test_initializeSpinner, to ensure the initializeSpinner function works correctly with and without the NoSpinner option.

Changelog

• pkg/scanning/scan_test.go
  • Added new test cases for 'inJS reflected parameter' with different contexts (URL query and data). Lines 147-164 and 165-189.
  • Replaced mockServer() with mockServerForScanTest() in Test_Scan. Line 301.
  • Updated target URLs in Test_Scan to use 'query' instead of 'param'. Lines 332, 349, 366, 384.
  • Added data to the blind xss test case in Test_Scan. Line 375.
  • Added IgnoreReturn option to the headless scan test case in Test_Scan. Line 393.
  • Added a new test function Test_initializeSpinner to test the initializeSpinner function. Lines 411-441.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

Did you know?

The term 'mock' in software testing comes from the world of acting, where a 'mock-up' is a full-scale model of something, used for demonstration or testing.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request enhances the Scan tests by revising the mock server usage and adding test cases for reflected parameters and the initializeSpinner function. These changes improve the test coverage and reliability of the scanning functionality.

Summary of Findings

• Test case naming: The test case names for reflected parameters could be more descriptive to indicate the specific type of reflection being tested (e.g., "inJS reflected parameter with query", "inATTR reflected parameter with data").
• Redundant test setup: The Test_initializeSpinner function could be simplified by using a table-driven test with boolean values directly instead of defining a custom args struct.
• Parameter name consistency: The parameter name in the target URL and UniqParam option should be consistent across all test cases (e.g., using "query" instead of "param").

Merge Readiness

The pull request introduces valuable enhancements to the Scan tests. Addressing the suggested improvements, particularly regarding test case naming and parameter consistency, would further enhance the quality and clarity of the tests. I am unable to directly approve this pull request, and recommend that others review and approve this code before merging. I recommend that the identified issues be addressed before merging.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!