QA Report

[c4-submissions]

See the markdown file with the details of this report here.

[141345]

743 MrPotatoMagic
l r nc
3 0 6

L 1 n [N-01] Variable used only in current contract should be marked with private instead of public visibility
L 2 n [N-02] Typo in struct name collectionAdditionalDataStructure
L 3 n [N-03] Remove redundant check from addMinter() function
L 4 n [N-04] Incorrect collectionPrimaryAndSecondaryAddresses comment should be corrected
L 5 n [N-05] Incorrect comment in function mintAndAuction() should be corrected
L 6 l [L-01] Missing check in function artistSignature() to ensure parameter _signature is not empty
L 7 n [L-02] Avoid copy pasting OZ libraries and inheriting from them
L 8 l [L-03] Missing check in function setCollectionCosts() to ensure salesOption is in range [1-3]
L 9 l [L-04] Missing check in function setCollectionPhases() to ensure allowlist/public end time is greater than start time

[c4-pre-sort]

141345 marked the issue as sufficient quality report

[alex-ppg]

QA Judgment

The Warden's QA report has been graded B based on a score of 16 combined with a manual review per the relevant QA guideline document located here.

The Warden's submission's score was assessed based on the following accepted findings:

Low-Risk

• [L-01]

Non-Critical

• [L-04]: Insufficient check are made in the setCollectionPhases function, which could lead to unusable collections #588

Informational

• [N-02]
• [N-04]
• [N-05]

[c4-judge]

alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-b

[mcgrathcoutinho]

Hi @alex-ppg, thanks for judging this:

Why are L-02, L-03 and N-03 not considered part of the QA report?

Additionally, just keeping #745 in loop here due to the pending decision. if it is considered to be a QA, then I believe it should be added to my QA score as well, which could potentially bump my grade from B to A.

Other than #745, #941 has been marked invalid though it can be considered as a QA issue. This would also help my overall QA score as it is marked as invalid instead of downgraded to QA.

Thank you for your time.

[alex-ppg]

Hey @mcgrathcoutinho, thanks for requesting clarifications on this QA report! Per the C4 guidelines, regardless of the outcome of issue #745, it cannot be "combined" with this QA report. Any downgraded QA issue is graded independently and the Warden is awarded with the greatest grade of the two. I have proceeded to provide a point-by-point review of your QA report:

• [N-01]: This is up to preference and these data points may be queried off-chain
• [N-02]: Awarded I
• [N-03]: Gas optimization
• [N-04]: Awarded I
• [N-05]: Awarded I
• [L-01]: Awarded QA (L)
• [L-02]: Preference
• [L-03]: Inconsequential, an option that is outside the range will "work" in the sense that some models do not require an explicit option. I can see this as QA (NC)
• [L-04]: Awarded QA (NC)

Combining the above grades will yield us a total of 19 which still does not come close to the lowest A report with a score of 23. Based on the above, I consider this submission to be graded B correctly.

[mcgrathcoutinho]

Thank you for the clarification