Adding CDP stake related invariants #791
Conversation
WalkthroughThe recent updates focus on enhancing the functionality and integrity of the contract ecosystem, particularly around the management of stakes and collaterals. A new function has been introduced to calculate real stakes, and the interface now supports snapshots of total collaterals and stakes. TestContracts have been enriched with new variables and functions to ensure the robustness of stake and collateral calculations, alongside the introduction of invariant checks to maintain system properties. Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
|
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (5)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/BeforeAfter.sol (6 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/PropertiesDescriptions.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol (18 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/echidna/EchidnaProperties.sol (1 hunks)
Files not reviewed due to errors (1)
- (no review received)
Additional comments: 22
packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/echidna/EchidnaProperties.sol (5)
- 43-45: The function
echidna_cdp_manager_invariant_7correctly implements the call toinvariant_CDPM_07(vars). This function is expected to test the invariant that stake decreases when collateral shares decrease for a CDP. Ensure that thevarsparameter passed toinvariant_CDPM_07is correctly initialized and contains all necessary data for this invariant check.- 47-49: The function
echidna_cdp_manager_invariant_8is implemented as expected, invokinginvariant_CDPM_08(vars). This tests the invariant that stake increases when collateral shares increase for a CDP. Similar to the previous function, verify thatvarsis properly initialized with the required data for the invariant check.- 51-53: In
echidna_cdp_manager_invariant_10, the function correctly callsinvariant_CDPM_10(cdpManager, vars). This function aims to test the invariant related tototalStakesSnapshotmatchingtotalStakesafter an operation, if the rebase index changed during the operation. It's crucial to ensure that bothcdpManagerandvarsare correctly set up with the necessary context for this test.- 55-57: The function
echidna_cdp_manager_invariant_11is well-defined, invokinginvariant_CDPM_11(cdpManager, vars). This tests the invariant concerningtotalCollateralSnapshotmatching the active pool'ssystemCollSharesafter an operation, if the rebase index changed. Confirm thatcdpManagerandvarsare adequately prepared with the relevant data.- 59-61:
echidna_cdp_manager_invariant_12correctly callsinvariant_CDPM_12(sortedCdps, vars), testing the invariant that the sum of all individual CDP stakes should equaltotalStakes. It's important to verify thatsortedCdpsandvarsare correctly initialized to ensure the accuracy of this invariant check.packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/PropertiesDescriptions.sol (6)
- 31-31: The description for
CDPM-07clearly communicates the expected behavior that stake decreases when collateral shares decrease for a CDP. This is crucial for understanding the invariant's purpose and ensuring that stakeholders have clear expectations.- 32-32: The description for
CDPM-08effectively explains the invariant that stake increases when collateral shares increase for a CDP. This clarity is essential for maintaining transparency and facilitating easier understanding of the contract's logic.- 33-34: The description for
CDPM-09provides a detailed explanation of the expected stake calculation after operations involving a CDP. It's important to ensure that this description accurately reflects the underlying logic in the corresponding invariant function.- 35-36: The description for
CDPM-10clearly states the condition under whichtotalStakesSnapshotshould matchtotalStakesafter an operation. This clarity helps in understanding the specific scenarios under which this invariant is checked.- 37-38: The description for
CDPM-11effectively communicates the condition fortotalCollateralSnapshotto match the active pool'ssystemCollSharesafter an operation. Ensuring that this description matches the logic in the corresponding invariant function is crucial for consistency.- 39-40: The description for
CDPM-12succinctly states the invariant that the sum of all individual CDP stakes should equaltotalStakes. This description is essential for understanding the overall integrity checks performed on the system's stake management.packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/BeforeAfter.sol (6)
- 37-38: The addition of
cdpStakeBeforeandcdpStakeAftervariables is consistent with the PR's objective to track stake amounts before and after certain operations. Ensure these variables are properly updated in all relevant contract functions to maintain the integrity of the tracking system.- 76-81: The introduction of
totalStakesBefore,totalStakesAfter,totalStakesSnapshotBefore,totalStakesSnapshotAfter,totalCollateralSnapshotBefore, andtotalCollateralSnapshotAftervariables is crucial for tracking the total stakes and collateral snapshots before and after operations. It's important to validate that these variables are updated accurately in the contract's logic to ensure the integrity of the system's state.- 101-101: The assignment of
vars.cdpStakeBeforewithin the_beforefunction is appropriate for capturing the stake amount of a CDP before certain operations. This aligns with the PR's objectives. However, ensure that this function is called at the correct points in the contract's workflow to accurately reflect the state before operations.- 150-152: The assignment of
totalStakesBefore,totalStakesSnapshotBefore, andtotalCollateralSnapshotBeforewithin the_beforefunction is essential for capturing the system's state before operations. Verify that these variables are used correctly in subsequent logic to ensure the system's integrity and that the_beforefunction is invoked appropriately.- 162-162: The assignment of
vars.cdpStakeAfterwithin the_afterfunction correctly captures the stake amount of a CDP after operations. This is in line with the PR's goals. Confirm that this function is called at the appropriate times to accurately reflect the state after operations.- 218-220: The assignment of
totalStakesAfter,totalStakesSnapshotAfter, andtotalCollateralSnapshotAfterwithin the_afterfunction is crucial for capturing the system's state after operations. It's important to ensure that these variables are utilized correctly in the contract's logic and that the_afterfunction is invoked at the right moments.packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol (5)
- 120-124: Consider adding comments to explain the purpose and expected behavior of
invariant_CDPM_07. This will improve code maintainability and readability for future contributors.- 127-131: Consider adding comments to explain the purpose and expected behavior of
invariant_CDPM_08. This will improve code maintainability and readability for future contributors.- 140-147: Consider adding comments to explain the purpose and expected behavior of
invariant_CDPM_10. This will improve code maintainability and readability for future contributors.- 150-157: Consider adding comments to explain the purpose and expected behavior of
invariant_CDPM_11. This will improve code maintainability and readability for future contributors.- 160-172: Consider adding comments to explain the purpose and expected behavior of
invariant_CDPM_12. This will improve code maintainability and readability for future contributors.
| function invariant_CDPM_09(Vars memory vars) internal view returns (bool) { | ||
| return | ||
| vars.cdpStakeAfter == | ||
| (vars.cdpCollAfter * vars.totalStakesSnapshotAfter) / vars.totalCollateralSnapshotAfter; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ensure to add a check to prevent division by zero in invariant_CDPM_09 when dividing by vars.totalCollateralSnapshotAfter. This is crucial for avoiding runtime errors.
+ require(vars.totalCollateralSnapshotAfter > 0, "Division by zero error");Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.
| function invariant_CDPM_09(Vars memory vars) internal view returns (bool) { | |
| return | |
| vars.cdpStakeAfter == | |
| (vars.cdpCollAfter * vars.totalStakesSnapshotAfter) / vars.totalCollateralSnapshotAfter; | |
| function invariant_CDPM_09(Vars memory vars) internal view returns (bool) { | |
| require(vars.totalCollateralSnapshotAfter > 0, "Division by zero error"); | |
| return | |
| vars.cdpStakeAfter == | |
| (vars.cdpCollAfter * vars.totalStakesSnapshotAfter) / vars.totalCollateralSnapshotAfter; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol (18 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 5
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol (19 hunks)
- packages/contracts/foundry_test/EchidnaToFoundry.t.sol (2 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol
| 51745835282927565687010251523416875790034155913406312339604760725754223914917, | ||
| 1000 | ||
| ); | ||
| vm.warp(block.timestamp + cdpManager.recoveryModeGracePeriodDuration() + 1); | ||
| /*vm.warp(block.timestamp + cdpManager.recoveryModeGracePeriodDuration() + 1); | ||
| setEthPerShare( | ||
| 79832022615203712424393490440177025697015516400034287083326403000335384151815 | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks and was mapped to the diff hunk with the greatest overlap. Original lines [508-531]
The commented-out block of code starting from line 508 to 531 seems to be related to a test scenario involving liquidation and checking conditions under Minimum Collateral Ratio (MCR) and Critical Collateral Ratio (CCR). However, it's entirely commented out, which might indicate either an incomplete test scenario or a temporarily disabled test case for debugging purposes.
- Security/Correctness: Ensure that the logic intended to be tested by this commented-out code is either covered elsewhere in the test suite or documented as a known gap.
- Maintainability: Large commented-out code blocks can clutter the codebase and make maintenance harder. If this code is not intended to be used, consider removing it. If it's meant for future use, add a detailed comment explaining the context and conditions under which it should be re-enabled.
Consider either implementing the test scenario fully, removing the commented-out code, or documenting its purpose and conditions for future enablement.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [643-643]
Detected an AWS Access Key ID hardcoded in the comments. Hardcoding sensitive credentials in the codebase, even within comments, poses a significant security risk.
- Security/PII Leakage: Exposing AWS Access Key IDs can lead to unauthorized access to AWS services, potentially resulting in data breaches, service disruptions, or financial implications.
- Best Practice: Always keep sensitive credentials out of the codebase. Use environment variables or secure secret management services to handle such information.
Remove the AWS Access Key ID from the comments and ensure that no sensitive credentials are hardcoded in the codebase. Implement a secure method for managing and accessing these credentials.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [674-674]
Detected an AWS Access Key ID hardcoded in the comments. Including sensitive credentials in the codebase, even within comments, is a security risk.
- Security/PII Leakage: Exposing AWS Access Key IDs can lead to unauthorized access to AWS services, potentially resulting in data breaches, service disruptions, or financial implications.
- Best Practice: Always keep sensitive credentials out of the codebase. Use environment variables or secure secret management services to handle such information.
Remove the AWS Access Key ID from the comments and ensure that no sensitive credentials are hardcoded in the codebase. Implement a secure method for managing and accessing these credentials.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [704-704]
Detected an AWS Access Key ID hardcoded in the comments. Including sensitive credentials in the codebase, even within comments, is a security risk.
- Security/PII Leakage: Exposing AWS Access Key IDs can lead to unauthorized access to AWS services, potentially resulting in data breaches, service disruptions, or financial implications.
- Best Practice: Always keep sensitive credentials out of the codebase. Use environment variables or secure secret management services to handle such information.
Remove the AWS Access Key ID from the comments and ensure that no sensitive credentials are hardcoded in the codebase. Implement a secure method for managing and accessing these credentials.
📝 NOTE
This review was outside the diff hunks, and no overlapping diff hunk was found. Original lines [922-922]
Detected an AWS Access Key ID hardcoded in the comments. Including sensitive credentials in the codebase, even within comments, is a security risk.
- Security/PII Leakage: Exposing AWS Access Key IDs can lead to unauthorized access to AWS services, potentially resulting in data breaches, service disruptions, or financial implications.
- Best Practice: Always keep sensitive credentials out of the codebase. Use environment variables or secure secret management services to handle such information.
Remove the AWS Access Key ID from the comments and ensure that no sensitive credentials are hardcoded in the codebase. Implement a secure method for managing and accessing these credentials.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol (19 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (2)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/echidna/EchidnaProperties.sol (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/echidna/EchidnaProperties.sol
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (6)
- packages/contracts/contracts/CRLens.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/Interfaces/ICdpManagerData.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/BeforeAfter.sol (5 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol (1 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol (19 hunks)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/echidna/EchidnaProperties.sol (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/BeforeAfter.sol
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/Properties.sol
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/echidna/EchidnaProperties.sol
Additional comments: 3
packages/contracts/contracts/CRLens.sol (1)
- 78-86: The implementation of
getRealStakecorrectly calculates the real stake based on collateral shares and snapshots. However, it would be beneficial to add comments explaining the logic, especially the calculation in the return statement, to improve code readability and maintainability.packages/contracts/contracts/Interfaces/ICdpManagerData.sol (2)
- 269-269: The addition of
totalCollateralSnapshotto theICdpManagerDatainterface is correctly implemented. It's essential for tracking the total collateral over time.- 271-271: The addition of
totalStakesSnapshotto theICdpManagerDatainterface is correctly implemented. It's crucial for tracking the total stakes over time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol (18 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/contracts/contracts/TestContracts/invariants/TargetFunctions.sol
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 1
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
packages/contracts/foundry.tomlis excluded by:!**/*.toml
Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/contracts/remappings.txt (1 hunks)
Additional comments: 1
packages/contracts/remappings.txt (1)
- 4-4: The remapping for
@openzeppelinremains unchanged, ensuring consistency in how external dependencies are managed. No action required here.
packages/contracts/remappings.txt
Outdated
| @crytic/properties/=lib/properties/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tip
Codebase Verification
The verification process has revealed that the packages/contracts/lib/properties directory exists but is empty. This suggests that the remapping for @crytic/properties to lib/properties/ may not be correctly set up or the expected files have not been added to the directory. It's important to ensure that the necessary files are present in the directory for the remapping to function as intended.
Analysis chain
The remapping for @crytic/properties to lib/properties/ looks organized. Ensure that the new path is correctly set up in the project structure and accessible during the build process.
Scripts Executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify if the directory exists and contains expected files
if [ -d "packages/contracts/lib/properties" ]; then
echo "Directory exists. Listing contents:"
ls packages/contracts/lib/properties
else
echo "Directory does not exist. Please check the path."
fi
Length of output: 166
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Explicitly verify the contents of the directory to ensure it's not empty
ls -A packages/contracts/lib/properties || echo "The directory is empty or does not exist."
Length of output: 41
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Status
Actionable comments generated: 0
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Files ignored due to path filters (1)
packages/contracts/foundry.tomlis excluded by:!**/*.toml
Files selected for processing (1)
- packages/contracts/remappings.txt (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
- packages/contracts/remappings.txt
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests