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

Mochi Protocol Is Lacking Extensive Test Coverage #167

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Oct 28, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Mochi Protocol Is Lacking Extensive Test Coverage #167

code423n4 opened this issue Oct 28, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments)

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

leastwood

Vulnerability details

Impact

The Mochi smart contract suite is considerably lacking code coverage in its tests. As a result, regardless of how successful previous audits were, there is no certainty that the contracts are free from bugs. Therefore, sufficient testing is a crucial tool to ensuring code operates as intended.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-10-mochi/tree/main/projects

Tools Used

Manual code review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider adding extensive testing to the Mochi smart contract suite.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working labels Oct 28, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 28, 2021
@code423n4
leastwood issue #167
ad87aa7
@r2moon r2moon added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) invalid This doesn't seem right and removed bug Something isn't working labels Oct 29, 2021
@r2moon
Copy link
Collaborator

r2moon commented Oct 29, 2021

this is not issue,

@ghoul-sol
Copy link
Collaborator

best practices

@ghoul-sol ghoul-sol added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed invalid This doesn't seem right 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Nov 2, 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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@r2moon @ghoul-sol @code423n4