Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

refactor tests (rebased) #26

Merged

Conversation

livingrockrises
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

Copy link

🤖 Slither Analysis Report 🔎

Slither report

Slither report

THIS CHECKLIST IS NOT COMPLETE. Use --show-ignored-findings to show all the results.
Summary
🔴 - name-reused (1 results) (High)
🟡 - unused-return (3 results) (Medium)
🔵 - shadowing-local (1 results) (Low)
🔵 - missing-zero-check (1 results) (Low)
🔵 - reentrancy-events (2 results) (Low)
ℹ️ - assembly (9 results) (Informational)
ℹ️ - dead-code (6 results) (Informational)
ℹ️ - low-level-calls (1 results) (Informational)
ℹ️ - naming-convention (1 results) (Informational)
ℹ️ - redundant-statements (1 results) (Informational)

name-reused

🔴 Impact: High
🔴 Confidence: High

interfaces/base/IHookManager.sol#L8-L11

unused-return

🟡 Impact: Medium
🟡 Confidence: Medium

  • ID-1
    SmartAccount.execute(ModeCode,bytes) ignores return value by (callType,execType) = mode.decode()

SmartAccount.sol#L51-L82

  • ID-2
    SmartAccount.executeFromExecutor(ModeCode,bytes) ignores return value by (callType,execType) = mode.decode()

SmartAccount.sol#L84-L134

  • ID-3
    SmartAccount.supportsExecutionMode(ModeCode) ignores return value by (callType,execType) = mode.decode()

SmartAccount.sol#L184-L204

shadowing-local

🔵 Impact: Low
🔴 Confidence: High

SmartAccount.sol#L37

missing-zero-check

🔵 Impact: Low
🟡 Confidence: Medium

factory/AccountFactory.sol#L11

reentrancy-events

🔵 Impact: Low
🟡 Confidence: Medium

SmartAccount.sol#L163-L174

SmartAccount.sol#L146-L161

assembly

ℹ️ Impact: Informational
🔴 Confidence: High

lib/ModeLib.sol#L87-L98

base/Storage.sol#L18-L22

  • ID-10
    SmartAccount.validateUserOp(PackedUserOperation,bytes32,uint256) uses assembly
    • INLINE ASM

SmartAccount.sol#L25-L48

base/AccountExecution.sol#L50-L73

base/AccountExecution.sol#L97-L113

lib/ModeLib.sol#L122-L126

lib/ExecLib.sol#L11-L27

base/AccountExecution.sol#L75-L94

base/AccountExecution.sol#L116-L134

dead-code

ℹ️ Impact: Informational
🟡 Confidence: Medium

base/ModuleManager.sol#L128-L132

lib/ModeLib.sol#L141-L143

base/AccountExecution.sol#L97-L113

base/AccountExecution.sol#L38-L48

base/AccountExecution.sol#L75-L94

base/AccountExecution.sol#L116-L134

low-level-calls

ℹ️ Impact: Informational
🔴 Confidence: High

  • ID-23
    🔵 Low level call in SmartAccount.executeUserOp(PackedUserOperation,bytes32):
    • (success) = address(this).delegatecall(callData)

SmartAccount.sol#L137-L144

naming-convention

ℹ️ Impact: Informational
🔴 Confidence: High

factory/AccountFactory.sol#L9

redundant-statements

ℹ️ Impact: Informational
🔴 Confidence: High

  • ID-25
    Redundant expression "additionalContext" inSmartAccount

SmartAccount.sol#L211

This comment was automatically generated by the GitHub Actions workflow.

@livingrockrises livingrockrises merged commit 9597581 into feat/phase-1-implementations Mar 12, 2024
6 of 14 checks passed
@livingrockrises livingrockrises deleted the m_refactor_test_phase1_impl branch March 12, 2024 17:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants