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 #10

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Open TODOs #10

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) question Further information is requested sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")

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 DebtLocker.sol line 77 :     // TODO: Discuss pros/cons of pause on this function
@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 #10
ebbf07d
@deluca-mike
Copy link
Collaborator

Fair enough. This is an open TODO, as we are still debating this. Actually, we'd like to see if not putting this function behind a whenProtocolNotPaused would be worse. For example, if we are pausing due to an issue with Liquidator.pullFunds?

@deluca-mike deluca-mike added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) question Further information is requested sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") labels Dec 3, 2021
@deluca-mike deluca-mike mentioned this issue Dec 9, 2021
Closed
@lucas-manuel lucas-manuel mentioned this issue Dec 12, 2021
Merged
4 tasks
@pauliax
Copy link
Collaborator

pauliax commented Dec 15, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Low-hanging fruit. Marking this as a non-critical recommendation.

@pauliax pauliax closed this as completed Dec 15, 2021
@pauliax pauliax added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation duplicate This issue or pull request already exists and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Dec 15, 2021
@pauliax pauliax reopened this Dec 15, 2021
@pauliax pauliax removed the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Dec 15, 2021
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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) question Further information is requested sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@pauliax @deluca-mike @code423n4