QA Report

[howlbot-integration]

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

[af-afk]

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-08-superposition-findings/blob/main/data/prapandey031-Q.md#low-1-use-of-unsafe-math-in-the-swap-function Is this a dupe?

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-08-superposition-findings/blob/main/data/prapandey031-Q.md#low-2-no-check-for-zero-amount-in-swap-function Is this a dupe?

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-08-superposition-findings/blob/main/data/prapandey031-Q.md#low-3-no-function-to-set-the-fee_protocol-of-a-pool This is a dupe.

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-08-superposition-findings/blob/main/data/prapandey031-Q.md#low-4-no-use-of-seconds-and-tick_cumulative-values-of-a-tick We'll remove this!

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-08-superposition-findings/blob/main/data/prapandey031-Q.md#low-5-removal-of-liquidity-also-requires-the-pool-to-be-enabled Dupe, we'll change the behaviour.

[c4-judge]

alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-b

[Ys-Prakash]

Hi @alex-ppg

Thank you for judging this contest.

The issue LOW-3 has been upgraded to a duplicate Medium.

However:

1. LOW-5 is a duplicate of Users can't remove liquidity while a pool is disabled #31 and has not been upgraded to its duplicate as a Medium. The sponsor has also acknowledged above that LOW-5 is a duplicate.

2. LOW-1 is a duplicate of Unintended under/overflow of the amount already swapped in/out due to unmatching logic #50 and has not been upgraded to its duplicate as a Medium. The sponsor confirmed Unintended under/overflow of the amount already swapped in/out due to unmatching logic #50 so this means they want to fix this.

Thank you

[alex-ppg]

Hey @Ys-Prakash, thank you for your PJQA contribution! While LOW-5 is indeed a proper duplicate, LOW-1 lacks sufficient rationale to be considered a duplicate of #50 and will remain unrewarded similar to other Uniswap inconsistencies that were pointed out but lacked sufficient justification.

[Ys-Prakash]

Hi @alex-ppg

Thank you for upgrading LOW-5. I could not comprehend your decision of declaring it as partial-50. As you said above that LOW-5 is a "proper" duplicate. I have mentioned the exact root cause as well as the exact mitigation as of the original issue #31. I understand that LOW-5 is less descriptive. But the exact root cause and the exact mitigation is mentioned clearly.

Thank you.