QA Report #86
Labels
bug
Something isn't working
QA (Quality Assurance)
Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax
sponsor confirmed
Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")
[L-01] MISSING ZERO-ADDRESS CHECK
Addresses should be checked against
address(0)
to prevent unintended actions, unexpected loss of assets, etc. Please consider checking the following address inputs.[L-02] CONSTANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF MAGIC NUMBERS
To improve readability and maintainability, constants can be used instead of magic numbers. Please consider replacing the magic numbers in the following code with constants.
[N-01] REDUNDANT CAST
initialProportion
does not need to be converted to uint256 because it is already stored as uint256 for the following code.[N-02] REVERT REASON CAN BE MORE EXACT
Because of the
initialOffer == 0
condition,initialOffer
can be 0, which is below 1%. The revert reason can clarify thatinitialOffer
can also be 0.[N-03] REVERT REASON CAN BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE
Instead of just mentioning "Unrecognized", the revert reason can describe what is unrecognized.
[N-04] INCOMPLETE NATSPEC COMMENTS
NatSpec provides rich documentation for code. @param and/or @return are missing for the following NatSpec comments:
[N-05] @notice PLACEMENT IN NATSPEC COMMENTS
It is a convention to place @notice above @dev and @param in NatSpec comments, which is not the case in the following code:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: