Liquid Staking
Stakelink
DeFiHardhatOracle
50,000 USDC
View results
Previous Next
Submission Details
Severity: medium
Invalid

test/core/rewards-pool-controller.test.ts

kp8877

Improvements and Vulnerability Checks for RewardsPoolController Tests:

Improvements:

  1. Function Documentation: Adding comments to explain the purpose of each test and the steps involved would improve readability and maintainability.

  2. Meaningful Variable Names: Using more descriptive variable names (e.g., rewardAmount instead of amount) would improve code clarity.

  3. DRY Principle: Consider refactoring common setup logic (e.g., deploying tokens, setting up accounts) into a reusable helper function.

Vulnerability Checks:

  1. Access Control: The tests don't explicitly check access control mechanisms for functions like addToken, removeToken, withdrawRewards, etc. It's essential to ensure only authorized users can perform these actions.

  2. Reentrancy: The tests don't seem to check for reentrancy vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities occur when a function calls another function that can call back into the original function before it finishes execution. This can be exploited to manipulate state or steal funds.

  3. Integer Overflow/Underflow: The tests don't check for potential integer overflow or underflow issues when performing calculations with token amounts or reward rates.

Here are some suggestions for incorporating these improvements and vulnerability checks:

Function Documentation:

JavaScript

it('should be able to add tokens', async () => {
// Explain the purpose of the test and the expected behavior
const { adrs, controller } = await loadFixture(deployFixture);
// ... existing code
});
​

Meaningful Variable Names:

JavaScript

it('should be able to add tokens', async () => {
const { adrs, controller } = await loadFixture(deployFixture);
const newToken = (await deploy('contracts/core/tokens/base/ERC677.sol:ERC677', [
'Token3',
'3',
1000000000,
])) as ERC677;
adrs.newToken = await newToken.getAddress();
// ... existing code
});
​

DRY Principle:

JavaScript

async function deployFixtureWithExtraToken(tokenName, tokenSymbol, totalSupply) {
const fixture = await deployFixture();
const token = (await deploy('contracts/core/tokens/base/ERC677.sol:ERC677', [
tokenName,
tokenSymbol,
totalSupply,
])) as ERC677;
fixture.adrs[tokenName] = await token.getAddress();
await setupToken(token, fixture.accounts);
return fixture;
}
​
it('should be able to add tokens', async () => {
const { adrs, controller } = await deployFixtureWithExtraToken('Token3', '3', 1000000000);
// ... existing code
});
​

Access Control:

JavaScript

it('should revert when adding a token by an unauthorized user', async () => {
const { adrs, controller, signers } = await loadFixture(deployFixture);
const attacker = signers[3]; // Assuming a separate attacker account
​
await expect(controller.connect(attacker).addToken(adrs.token1, adrs.rewardsPool1)).to.be.revertedWith('Unauthorized');
});
​

Reentrancy:

While unit tests may not be the best way to exhaustively test for reentrancy**,** consider using tools like MythX or Slither to analyze the smart contract code for potential reentrancy vulnerabilities.

Integer Overflow/Underflow:

JavaScript

it('should revert when adding a very large amount of tokens', async () => {
const { adrs, controller } = await loadFixture(deployFixture);
const veryLargeAmount = ethers.utils.bigNumberify('1000000000000000000000000'); // Assuming a very large number
​
await expect(controller.addToken(adrs.token1, adrs.rewardsPool1, veryLargeAmount)).to.be.revertedWith('SafeMath: multiplication overflow');
});
​

Note: Remember to adjust these examples based on the specific implementation of your smart contracts.

Updates

Lead Judging Commences

inallhonesty Lead Judge about 1 year ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Lack of quality

Support

FAQs

Can't find an answer? Chat with us on Discord, Twitter or Linkedin.