Open code423n4 opened 2 years ago
Disagree as true
is the value returned on success
If anything just use @dev tag
Very confident natspec doesn't require all fields, else the compiler would warn
Agree with typos and with the refactoring, although it won't save gas
Overall a pretty small and concise report
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/2a5664d35cde5b036074edef3c1369b984d10010/protocol/contracts/AddressProvider.sol#L112-L129
In the function of removepool().
Comment
was used to said that :but in
actual code
was :So it can be changed as it should be.
Tool Used
Manual Review
Another Occurances
It happen too in this code : 1.) AddressProvider.sol Lines247-261 2). LpGauge.sol Lines.48-62
_prepare
This code was redundant and it could be deleted for better code since it has
1 and 2 with the same fn()
Tool Used
Manual Review
1.) File : contracts/AddressProvider.sol (Lines.77-87)
Missing
@return
2.) File : contracts/BkdLocker.sol (Lines.77-83)
Missing
@return
3.) File : contracts/Controller.sol (Lines.78-84)
Missing
@param amount
4.) File : contracts/Controller.sol (Lines.100-108)
Missing
@param keeper
5.) File : contracts/Controller.sol (Lines.118-130)
Missing
@param payer
6.) File : contracts/utils/Preparable.sol (Lines.50-55)
7.) File : contracts/utils/Preparable.sol (Lines.74-79)
1.) File : contracts/BkdLocker.sol (Line.174)
invlude
change toinclude
2.) File : contracts/AddressProvider.sol (Line.237)
feeze
change intofreeze
_MAX_SUPPLY
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/2a5664d35cde5b036074edef3c1369b984d10010/protocol/contracts/utils/CvxMintAmount.sol#L12
changed to :