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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Open TODOs #16

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Open TODOs #16

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

robee

Vulnerability details

Open TODOs can hint at programming or architectural errors that still need to be fixed.
These files has open TODOs:

    Open TODO in UniV3Vault.sol line 220 :     /// TODO: make a virtual function here? Or other better approach
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Dec 2, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2021
@code423n4
robee issue #16
0dc7977
@MihanixA MihanixA added the sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue label Dec 15, 2021
@loudoguno loudoguno added the need sponsor input (disputed without comment) should provide explanation why when disagreeing with a wardens assessment label Dec 18, 2021
@MihanixA MihanixA mentioned this issue Dec 21, 2021
Closed
@MihanixA MihanixA added sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons and removed sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue need sponsor input (disputed without comment) should provide explanation why when disagreeing with a wardens assessment labels Dec 21, 2021
@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

As there is no direct security risk, I will treat these issues as non-critical.

@0xleastwood 0xleastwood added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Jan 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@loudoguno @MihanixA @0xleastwood @code423n4