-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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.
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
QA Report #17
Comments
We're happy with this behaviour currently. We think it makes sense in the context with how the initial price and costing could be abused.
Could we have some extra context if this is an issue in its application? It's true that the function behaves like this, but it's privately used in the codebase, and it's our understanding that these callers enforce correct checks.
We recognise that this is potentially an issue, but we don't perceive it is likely to happen in practice. Even with a small amount, someone could create a position, supply some liquidity, remove it, and do all this in the same function, with the only cost a greater gas profile. A better architectural decision would be to move the position ID behaviour into a per pool basis, but we don't believe that in practice someone will grief this function to that extent.
We should change this. Thankfully for us this is the same implementation.
We would appreciate some evidence under which circumstances this could cause an issue. |
While QA reports are not eligible for rewards on this contest, I believe this QA report is acceptable and thus merits an A rating. |
alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-a |
C4 Staff have added the |
See the markdown file with the details of this report here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: