fix: fix deep sensitive redaction

src/structs/sensitive.ts

@@ -121,19 +121,73 @@ export function withRedactedBranch(
   // eslint-disable-next-line jsdoc/require-jsdoc
   function* redactBranch(failures: Iterable<Failure>): Iterable<Failure> {
     for (const failure of failures) {
-      yield {
-        ...failure,
-        // Replace the parent object in the branch with a sanitised copy.
-        // Reference equality (`===`) is intentional: we only want to touch
-        // this specific parent, not an unrelated object at a different depth
-        // that might happen to have the same shape.
-        branch: failure.branch.map((branchItem) => {
-          if (branchItem !== parentObj || !isObject(parentObj)) {
-            return branchItem;
+      if (!isObject(parentObj)) {
+        yield failure;
+        continue;
+      }
+
+      // Locate this specific parent. If it isn't in the branch (e.g. the
+      // failure came from a different scope), pass it through.
+      const parentIndex = failure.branch.indexOf(parentObj);
+      if (parentIndex === -1) {
+        yield failure;
+        continue;
+      }
+
+      // Sanitize the parent entry.
+      const branch = [...failure.branch];
+      branch[parentIndex] = redactKeys(parentObj, sensitiveKeys);
+
+      // Walk backward through every ancestor in the branch. Each ancestor
+      // holds a direct reference to the child below it - without this step,
+      // outer objects would still expose the unredacted child through their
+      // own properties (e.g. root.wrapper.secret would remain visible
+      // even after wrapper was sanitised at branch[1]).
+      //
+      // For each level we use the original child reference to find which
+      // property key points to it (via ===), then replace that entry with
+      // the already-sanitised child from the patched branch.
+      for (
+        let ancestorIndex = parentIndex - 1;
+        ancestorIndex >= 0;
+        ancestorIndex--
+      ) {
+        const ancestor = branch[ancestorIndex];
+
+        // No reference to update in this case.
+        if (!isObject(ancestor)) {
+          break;
+        }
+
+        // Keep the original child reference, so we can detect it.
+        const child = failure.branch[ancestorIndex + 1];
+
+        // The already-sanitised child from the patched branch.
+        const childSanitized = branch[ancestorIndex + 1];
+
+        // If we find the (original) child (not redacted) in one of the ancestor's
+        // properties/entries, we replace it with the redacted version (re-using the same
+        // sanitized child from the patched branch).
+        if (Array.isArray(ancestor)) {
+          const childIndex = ancestor.indexOf(child);
+          if (childIndex === -1) {
+            break;
           }
-          return redactKeys(parentObj, sensitiveKeys);
-        }),
-      };
+          const copy = [...ancestor];
+          copy[childIndex] = childSanitized;
+          branch[ancestorIndex] = copy;
+        } else {
+          const childKey = Object.keys(ancestor).find(
+            (key) => ancestor[key] === child,
+          );
+          if (childKey === undefined) {
+            break;
+          }
+          branch[ancestorIndex] = { ...ancestor, [childKey]: childSanitized };
+        }
+      }
+
+      yield { ...failure, branch };
     }
   }
 

test/validation/sensitive/invalid-sibling-ancestor-deep.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+import { literal, object, sensitive, string } from '../../../src';
+
+// Three levels of nesting: RootStruct > WrapperStruct > AccountStruct.
+// A sibling failure inside AccountStruct must redact sensitive data from
+// ALL branch entries — including both intermediate and root ancestors.
+const SecretStruct = object({
+  secret: sensitive(string()),
+  encoding: literal('hex'),
+});
+
+const WrapperStruct = object({
+  account: SecretStruct,
+  tag: literal('ok'),
+});
+
+export const Struct = object({
+  wrapper: WrapperStruct,
+  id: literal('root'),
+});
+
+export const data = {
+  wrapper: {
+    account: { secret: 'super-secret', encoding: 'invalid-encoding' },
+    tag: 'ok',
+  },
+  id: 'root',
+};
+
+export const failures = [
+  {
+    value: 'invalid-encoding',
+    type: 'literal',
+    refinement: undefined,
+    path: ['wrapper', 'account', 'encoding'],
+    branch: [
+      {
+        wrapper: {
+          account: { secret: '***', encoding: 'invalid-encoding' },
+          tag: 'ok',
+        },
+        id: 'root',
+      },
+      {
+        account: { secret: '***', encoding: 'invalid-encoding' },
+        tag: 'ok',
+      },
+      { secret: '***', encoding: 'invalid-encoding' },
+      'invalid-encoding',
+    ],
+  },
+];

test/validation/sensitive/invalid-sibling-ancestor.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+import { literal, object, sensitive, string } from '../../../src';
+
+// When a sensitive() field lives inside a nested object(), a sibling-field
+// failure must redact sensitive data from ALL branch entries — including
+// ancestor objects that hold a reference to the inner (parent) object.
+// Without the fix, branch[0] (the outer wrapper) still exposes secret
+// via its `account` property.
+const SecretStruct = object({
+  secret: sensitive(string()),
+  encoding: literal('hex'),
+});
+
+export const Struct = object({
+  account: SecretStruct,
+  tag: literal('ok'),
+});
+
+export const data = {
+  account: { secret: 'super-secret', encoding: 'invalid-encoding' },
+  tag: 'ok',
+};
+
+export const failures = [
+  {
+    value: 'invalid-encoding',
+    type: 'literal',
+    refinement: undefined,
+    path: ['account', 'encoding'],
+    branch: [
+      {
+        account: { secret: '***', encoding: 'invalid-encoding' },
+        tag: 'ok',
+      },
+      { secret: '***', encoding: 'invalid-encoding' },
+      'invalid-encoding',
+    ],
+  },
+];