Description:
The SpookySwap::trickOrTreat
function contains a misleading comment that refers to a non-existent function, SpookySwap::fellForTrick
, which is not implemented in the contract. This incorrect reference can lead to confusion for developers or users reading the documentation.
Here is the problematic code snippet:
The correct function to finish the transaction is actually resolveTrick(uint256 tokenId)
, not fellForTrick()
. This documentation error can result in misunderstanding of how to properly interact with the smart contract, potentially leading to failed attempts to complete transactions.
Impact: This misleading comment may cause developers or users to attempt calling a function that does not exist (fellForTrick()
), leading to confusion, frustration, or unnecessary debugging efforts. If left uncorrected, this could also impact the contract's perceived reliability and developer experience.
**Recommended Mitigation:**Update the comment to reference the correct function, ensuring accurate documentation and preventing confusion:
By providing the correct function name (resolveTrick(uint256 tokenId)), the documentation will accurately reflect how the contract works, improving clarity and usability for developers and users interacting with it.
This is an informational issue.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.