General review and remarks

[QGarchery]

0. • Various naming and comments inconsistencies corresponding to the changes in Review of comments, libraries and interfaces #438
1. • Signatures of funtions that return multiple values sometimes name these values (see idToMarketParams, supply functions) and sometimes not (see market function). See proposed changes in Review of comments, libraries and interfaces #438
2. • Reverting on 0 assets in supply collateral and withdraw collateral, but it is possible to supply 0 assets
3. • What's the reasoning behind choosing when to add the msg.sender to an event ? Can you explain how this reasoning applies to CreateMarket, Withdraw and SetAuthorization ?

[MerlinEgalite]

3. Can be helpful for analytics to understand who is submitting an action on behalf of someone else.

[QGarchery]

3. Can be helpful for analytics to understand who is submitting an action on behalf of someone else.

Ok it makes sense then, I was thinking that it was useful in cases of callbacks

[MathisGD]

Reverting on 0 assets in supply collateral and withdraw collateral, but it is possible to supply 0 assets

see #155, and to me it is fine because the storage still changes (increase in the number of shares).

it is possible to supply 0 assets

Btw I don't think so , but borrow yes

[QGarchery]

see #155, and to me it is fine because the storage still changes (increase in the number of shares).

Ok but why would this situation be ok ? In this scenario funds are not moved, so it seems like it's only enabling manipulations

[MathisGD]

manipulations.. you are borrowing (mobilizing collateral) but not even receiving any funds it seems ok. I mean it happens for each borrow in some sense with the rounding.

[MathisGD]

Feel free to re-open #155 because it is the only remaining discussion of this issue