Implementations should inherit their interface

[code423n4]

Handle

WatchPug

Vulnerability details

It's a best practice for the contract implementations to inherit their interface definition.

Doing so would improve the contract's clarity, and force the implementation to comply with the defined interface.

Instances include:

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-malt/blob/c3a204a2c0f7c653c6c2dda9f4563fd1dc1cecf3/src/contracts/TransferService.sol#L14-L14

contract TransferService is Initializable, Permissions {

TransferService should inherit ITransferService.

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-malt/blob/c3a204a2c0f7c653c6c2dda9f4563fd1dc1cecf3/src/contracts/DexHandlers/UniswapHandler.sol#L20-L20

contract UniswapHandler is Initializable, Permissions {

UniswapHandler should inherit IDexHandler.

[GalloDaSballo]

In principle I agree with the finding, interface inheritance gives stronger guarantees to developers.
From my experience with solidty 0.6.X using interfaces can cause undersirable side effects such as being forced to mark functions as virtual (meaning they can be further modified by child contracts)

Because this can get nuanced, am marking the finding as valid only because the sponsor confirmed