test: improve TimingResistantEqual test coverage #271

This improves the test for TimingResistantEqual by adding more relevant edge cases, including:

• Empty string vs non-empty string
• Differences at the beginning of the string
• Additional prefix/suffix length mismatch tests

These cases help ensure the function properly resists timing attacks when comparing secrets of different lengths

<!--e57a25ab6845829454e8d69fc972939a-->

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

<!--021abf342d371248e50ceaed478a90ca-->

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

<!--5faf32d7da4f0f540f40219e4f7537a3-->

Is there a planned call site for TimingResistantEqual? Is there any place libmultiprocess would need a constant-time comparison?

Is there a planned call site for TimingResistantEqual? Is there any place libmultiprocess would need a constant-time comparison?

You're right, currently there is no clear call site in libmultiprocess that requires constant-time comparison. This test only improves coverage for the existing function, but I agree that without a concrete use case it might not be justified here.