[N-01] Allowance Audit

[kosedogus]

Fixes N-01

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Clarified how withdrawal failures are determined at execution time based on the object’s live balance.
  • Updated guidance so integrators rely on dry runs to detect insufficient-funds cases instead of matching a specific error code.
  • Refined notes around withdraw behavior to better distinguish live balance from settled balance.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 95576dfe-2517-406c-b908-c15386b45d83

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 12086c2 and 71f9bc0.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• contracts/allowance/README.md
• contracts/allowance/sources/spend_vault.move

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR updates documentation comments in the allowance contracts module and README to clarify that InsufficientFundsForWithdraw failures relate to the object's live balance at execution time, rather than the settled balance. No code logic, error codes, or public API signatures are altered.

Changes

Documentation wording clarification

Layer / File(s)	Summary
README pool-short explanation contracts/allowance/README.md	Reworded explanation of pool-short failures to reference live balance at execution, anchored at redeem_funds, and reiterating that the failure surfaces via SDK/dry-run rather than module abort codes.
Module and function docstring updates contracts/allowance/sources/spend_vault.move	Updated module-level "Mixed error model" commentary and docstrings for spend, withdraw, and withdraw_all to consistently describe InsufficientFundsForWithdraw as tied to live balance at execution instead of settled balance.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Poem

A wee rabbit hops through docs so fine,
Swapping "settled" for "live" in every line.
No code was touched, no logic bent,
Just clearer words for what redeem_funds meant.
Thump thump! 🐇📜

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The description is far too sparse and omits the required issue reference, change summary, and checklist items.	Add a Resolves # issue reference, a brief description of the fix, and complete the PR checklist for Tests, Documentation, and Changelog.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title is related to the allowance audit work, though it is broader than the specific balance-check fix.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/allowance-N-01

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.41%. Comparing base (12086c2) to head (71f9bc0).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #424      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.35%   96.41%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          31       31              
  Lines        3014     3014              
  Branches      734      736       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         2904     2906       +2     
  Misses         66       66              
+ Partials       44       42       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
contracts/access	65.46% <ø> (ø)
contracts/allowance	52.00% <ø> (ø)
contracts/finance	25.57% <ø> (ø)
contracts/utils	44.09% <ø> (ø)
math/core	87.04% <ø> (+0.14%)	⬆️
math/fixed_point	61.57% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[ericnordelo]

LGTM!

[bidzyyys]

LGTM

[immrsd]

LGTM