Single Trade Volume Restriction #262

subramanianv · 2018-09-18T11:51:26Z

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

The commit message follows our Submission guidelines
Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

Closes #258
(Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)

What is the current behavior?

(You can also link to an open issue here)

What is the new behavior?

(Define and describe any new functionality. Clarify if this is a feature change)

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

(What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)

Any Other information:

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-18T11:55:47Z

Thanks @subramanianv for starting to work on this. Let @adamdossa @satyamakgec or myself know if you have any questions. Seems like you are on the right direction so far ;)

satyamakgec · 2018-09-18T17:10:15Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+
+    if(specialTransferLimitWallets[_from]) {
+      if(globalTransferLimitInPercentage) {
+        validTransfer = (_amount.mul(100).div(ISecurityToken(securityToken).totalSupply())) <= specialTransferLimits[_from];


Error in the calculation. You are giving the margin of 0.9 %. Suppose if the left size has the 15.7% and right side have the 15 % value then it still gets true instead of false.

@satyamakgec I don't fully understand your comment. Is your comment because of this warning from the solidity docs ? Division on integer literals used to truncate in earlier versions, but it will now convert into a rational number, i.e. 5 / 2 is not equal to 2, but to 2.5.

Also From PercentageTransferManager
if(newBalance.mul(10**uint256(ISecurityToken(securityToken).decimals())).div(ISecurityToken(securityToken).totalSupply()) > maxHolderPercentage) { return Result.INVALID; }

Shouldn't newBalance be multipled by 10^18 explicitly instead of 10^decimals as maxHolderPercentage is multipled by (10^18/100) ?

I don't think so because by default securitytoken have 18 decimals so in case of PercentageTransferManager it always give you the value right percentage calculation.

newBalance = x * 10^d totalSupply = y * 10^d maxHolderPercentage = z * 10^d so it looks like this - (x* 10^d * 10^d) / y* 10^d > (z * 10^d)/100 ... where d = 18 After calculation you can easily compare ((x * 10^18)/y) > (z* 10^16)

But in your case you are doing this

amount = a* 10^d totalSupply = b* 10^d Limit= c* 10^d (case 1) so it will look like this - (a* 10^d * 100)/(b* 10^d) <= c* 10^d .... where d = 18 so your left hand side is always less than the right hand side. Limit = c (case 2) in this condition - (155000 * 10^d * 100) / (1000000 * 10^d) <= 15 .... a= 155000, b = 1000000, c= 15 and d =18. After calculation it should be 15.5 <= 15 (and it will returns true as per my test on remix with 0.4.24 and 0.4.25 solidity version). and using case 2 you also can't cover the limits in decimal

@satyamakgec Thanks for the reply. The first case, which I haven't implemented is missing a multiplication by 10^18. it should be (a* 10^d * 10^18)/(b* 10^d) <= c* 10^16. I will implement this formula/calculation.

In the PercentageTransferManager - the math should be (x* 10^d * 10^18) / y* 10^d > (z * 10^18)/100. The multiplication should be explicitly done by 10^18. I think this would work for security token of any decimals, not just tokens with 18 decimals

satyamakgec · 2018-09-19T15:33:15Z

@subramanianv I think the best time to review the code when you have done with the test cases and all the specs get covered.

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T11:14:08Z

Hi @subramanianv thanks for submitting this PR. Could you please make it against the development-1.5.0 branch instead? There might be some minimal changes to be made.

…k/polymath-core into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

subramanianv · 2018-09-26T19:23:06Z

@pabloruiz55 I made the PR against development-1.5.0. The PR is ready for review :)

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:09:43Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+  */
+  function configure(bool _isTransferLimitInPercentage, uint256 _globalTransferLimitInPercentageOrToken) public onlyFactory {
+    require(_globalTransferLimitInPercentageOrToken > 0, "global transfer limit has to greater than 0");
+    isTransferLimitInPercentage = _isTransferLimitInPercentage;


if we are dealing with percentage require it to be <= 100

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:11:17Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+  * @param _newGlobalTransferLimitInPercentage new transfer limit in percentage. Multiple the percentage by 10^16. Eg 22% will be 22*10^16
+  */
+  function changeGlobalLimitInPercentage(uint256 _newGlobalTransferLimitInPercentage) public withPerm(ADMIN) {
+    require(isTransferLimitInPercentage, "Transfer limit not set in Percentage");


require 0 <= _newGlobalTransferLimitInPercentage <= 100

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:13:00Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+  * @param _wallet wallet address
+  * @param _transferLimitInPercentage transfer limit for the wallet in percentage. Multiple the percentage by 10^16. Eg 22% will be 22*10^16
+  */
+  function setTransferLimitInPercentage(address _wallet, uint _transferLimitInPercentage) public withPerm(ADMIN) {


Would be ideal to make this into a batch function. Pass _wallet and _transferLimitInPercentage as arrays and perform this operation for each item. So on the frontend we can perform these operations in batch.

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:15:16Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+  * @notice removes transfer limit for a wallet
+  * @param _wallet wallet address
+  */
+  function removeTransferLimitForWallet(address _wallet) public withPerm(ADMIN) {


Same as above, please make into a batch function.

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:15:57Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+  * @param _wallet wallet address
+  * @param _transferLimit transfer limit for the wallet in tokens
+  */
+  function setTransferLimitForWallet(address _wallet, uint _transferLimit) public withPerm(ADMIN) {


Would be ideal to make this into a batch function. Pass _wallet and _transferLimit as arrays and perform this operation for each item. So on the frontend we can perform these operations in batch.

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:18:32Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+  * @notice add an exempt wallet
+  * @param _wallet exempt wallet address
+  */
+  function addExemptWallet(address _wallet) public withPerm(ADMIN) {


Same as other functions. Please make into batch function

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:18:49Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+  * @notice remove an exempt wallet
+  * @param _wallet exempt wallet address
+  */
+  function removeExemptWallet(address _wallet) public withPerm(ADMIN) {


Same as other function. Please make into batch function

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:19:47Z

contracts/modules/TransferManager/SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

+
+  mapping(address => uint) public specialTransferLimits;
+
+  event LogExemptWalletAdded(address _wallet);


Since some time ago solidity introduced the "emit" keyword, we recently changed all events so they don't start with "log", please remove "Log" prefix from every event.

pabloruiz55 · 2018-09-26T22:24:37Z

@subramanianv thanks for submitting the PR! In general terms it looks good! I like how you quickly got the hang out of how our modules have been structured. Left you a few requests for changes, basically making most of the functions so arrays are passed and multiple entries can be added/removed in a single tx. You can check other TM modules to see how we've done it.

On top of that, I'd need you to:

Make sure natspec comments are fully added to each function
Indentation follows Solidity Indentation style (Use 4 spaces per indentation level)

Thanks!

@satyamakgec could you check if there's anything else I missed?

satyamakgec · 2018-09-28T08:10:15Z

@subramanianv Thanks! Now the test coverage is very good.
The only thing I am worried about the specialTransferLimits nature when Issuer switch between %age to fix no. of tokens or vice versa. Don't you think it will be a pain to an issuer if he switches over then he needs to add the special limits again? couldn't we maintain the different variables to hold the %age and fix no. of token that will make the life of issuer easier? @pabloruiz55 WDYT?

subramanianv · 2018-09-28T08:27:50Z

@satyamakgec The cleanest approach would be to pause/remove the existing transfer manager and create a new transfer manager with the required config. That was my initial thought. We can also use two different variables to hold the specialtransferlimits as you suggested. lets wait for @pabloruiz55 to jump in.

…deVolumeRestriction

…k/polymath-core into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

satyamakgec · 2018-10-01T14:14:00Z

Hey, @subramanianv you can wrap this up using the 2 variables approach.

subramanianv · 2018-10-01T14:24:11Z

@satyamakgec I made into 2 variables. Please review the PR. Thanks :)

satyamakgec · 2018-10-02T17:51:57Z

Hey @subramanianv on logical side code is good to go. Please update your branch.
Some minor fixes you need to add:

Add the comaptibleVersionRange into your factory.
Do the changes in your test cases as per the recent commit
Add some comments/description for the state variables and event(ref. SecurityToken.sol).
Change the test file name to w_single_trade_volume_restriction.js also remove all the external gas declaration from the test cases as we did in our latest commits.
Add the module in migrations (we will see whether we are going to deploy it in our latest release or not. But for now you can add it).

…k/polymath-core into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

subramanianv · 2018-10-03T08:54:58Z

@satyamakgec I made all the requested changes.

Add the comaptibleVersionRange into your factory.
Followed what is set in other contracts. compatibleSTVersionRange["lowerBound"] = VersionUtils.pack(uint8(0), uint8(0), uint8(0)); compatibleSTVersionRange["upperBound"] = VersionUtils.pack(uint8(0), uint8(0), uint8(0));

Do the changes in your test cases as per the recent commit
Done

Add some comments/description for the state variables and event(ref. SecurityToken.sol).
Done

Change the test file name to w_single_trade_volume_restriction.js also remove all the external gas declaration from the test cases as we did in our latest commits.
renamed to w_single_trade_volume_restriction.js. Removed all external gas

Add the module in migrations.
Added the module in migrations

pabloruiz55 · 2018-10-04T19:16:24Z

@satyamakgec there seems to be an issue with tests here, could you check?

Compilation failed. See above.
Cleaning up...
Event trace could not be read.
Error: ENOENT: no such file or directory, open './allFiredEvents'
Exiting without generating coverage...

subramanianv · 2018-10-05T17:17:48Z

@satyamakgec Can this PR be closed as the code has been merged into development ?

pabloruiz55 · 2018-10-05T17:36:32Z

Closing this PR as it was merged in #318
Thanks @subramanianv !

Initial Setup

a48ae40

pabloruiz55 requested a review from adamdossa September 18, 2018 11:54

pabloruiz55 requested review from satyamakgec and pabloruiz55 September 18, 2018 11:55

subramanianv added 3 commits September 18, 2018 17:33

deploy function

90c9c54

Implement VerfyTransfer Function and also Permissions

62f4d6c

Fix lookup errors

b1e882a

satyamakgec reviewed Sep 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

Single Trade Volume Tests WIP

f6b9c7a

Complete tests

c7f5012

subramanianv changed the base branch from master to development-1.5.0 September 26, 2018 17:16

subramanianv added 4 commits September 26, 2018 23:09

Update comments

939d0c0

Merge branch 'development-1.5.0' of https://github.com/PolymathNetwor…

5f5f416

…k/polymath-core into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

change implementation according to development-1.5 branch

4e1010f

Tests refactored

c87b5c2

subramanianv force-pushed the singleTradeVolumeRestriction branch from e588776 to c87b5c2 Compare September 26, 2018 18:47

pabloruiz55 reviewed Sep 26, 2018

View reviewed changes

Added multi functions

889db0e

subramanianv added 3 commits October 1, 2018 18:48

Changes from the review

7a56664

Merge https://github.com/PolymathNetwork/polymath-core into singleTra…

1e46254

…deVolumeRestriction

Merge branch 'development-1.5.0' of https://github.com/PolymathNetwor…

8c344e3

…k/polymath-core into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

subramanianv force-pushed the singleTradeVolumeRestriction branch from b6f8753 to 8c344e3 Compare October 1, 2018 13:26

Add tests

6b328dc

subramanianv added 2 commits October 3, 2018 11:28

Merge branch 'development-1.5.0' of https://github.com/PolymathNetwor…

477a858

…k/polymath-core into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

Changes from the review

09015da

subramanianv force-pushed the singleTradeVolumeRestriction branch from 6457008 to 09015da Compare October 3, 2018 07:35

Deleted tokeninfo.js

c6722fd

adamdossa added 2 commits October 4, 2018 19:22

Merge branch 'development-1.5.0' into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

b2c717d

Update 2_deploy_contracts.js

9da57ab

adamdossa approved these changes Oct 4, 2018

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'development-1.5.0' into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

d30f0fb

adamdossa and others added 4 commits October 4, 2018 20:17

Update SingleTradeVolumeRestrictionManager.sol

77b3410

Update 2_deploy_contracts.js

786d705

Update w_single_trade_volume_restriction.js

149f56d

minor fixes

28c3315

satyamakgec approved these changes Oct 5, 2018

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'development-1.5.0' into singleTradeVolumeRestriction

61f268d

pabloruiz55 closed this Oct 5, 2018

subramanianv deleted the singleTradeVolumeRestriction branch October 5, 2018 17:37

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Single Trade Volume Restriction #262

Single Trade Volume Restriction #262

subramanianv commented Sep 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

pabloruiz55 commented Sep 18, 2018

satyamakgec Sep 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

subramanianv Sep 18, 2018

subramanianv Sep 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

satyamakgec Sep 19, 2018

subramanianv Sep 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

satyamakgec commented Sep 19, 2018

pabloruiz55 commented Sep 26, 2018 •

edited

Loading

subramanianv commented Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018 •

edited

Loading

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018

pabloruiz55 commented Sep 26, 2018

satyamakgec commented Sep 28, 2018

subramanianv commented Sep 28, 2018 •

edited

Loading

satyamakgec commented Oct 1, 2018

subramanianv commented Oct 1, 2018

satyamakgec commented Oct 2, 2018

subramanianv commented Oct 3, 2018

pabloruiz55 commented Oct 4, 2018

subramanianv commented Oct 5, 2018

pabloruiz55 commented Oct 5, 2018


		mapping(address => uint) public specialTransferLimits;

		event LogExemptWalletAdded(address _wallet);

Single Trade Volume Restriction #262

Single Trade Volume Restriction #262

Conversation

subramanianv commented Sep 18, 2018 • edited Loading

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

What is the current behavior?

What is the new behavior?

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

Any Other information:

pabloruiz55 commented Sep 18, 2018

satyamakgec Sep 18, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

subramanianv Sep 18, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

subramanianv Sep 19, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

satyamakgec commented Sep 19, 2018

pabloruiz55 commented Sep 26, 2018 • edited Loading

subramanianv commented Sep 26, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pabloruiz55 commented Sep 26, 2018

satyamakgec commented Sep 28, 2018

subramanianv commented Sep 28, 2018 • edited Loading

satyamakgec commented Oct 1, 2018

subramanianv commented Oct 1, 2018

satyamakgec commented Oct 2, 2018

subramanianv commented Oct 3, 2018

pabloruiz55 commented Oct 4, 2018

subramanianv commented Oct 5, 2018

pabloruiz55 commented Oct 5, 2018

subramanianv commented Sep 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

satyamakgec Sep 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

subramanianv Sep 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

subramanianv Sep 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

pabloruiz55 commented Sep 26, 2018 •

edited

Loading

pabloruiz55 Sep 26, 2018 •

edited

Loading

subramanianv commented Sep 28, 2018 •

edited

Loading