DODO Process Quality Review

Score: 84%

This is a DODO Process Quality Review completed on 25 October 2020. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.5) and is documented here. The review was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 84%, a solid pass. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the review looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

  1. Here is my smart contract on the blockchain

  2. You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code

  3. Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does

  4. Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract

  5. Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

Disclaimer

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.

Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

Executing Code Verification

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This review will answer the questions;

  1. Are the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)

  2. Is the code actively being used? (%)

  3. Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)

  4. Does the code match a tagged version in the code hosting platform? (%)

  5. Is the software repository healthy? (%)

Are the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

They are available at Address https://dodoex.github.io/docs/docs/deployedInfo as indicated in the Appendix. This review only covers the contract DoDoEthProxy.sol.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 88 transactions a day, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance

100% More than 10 transactions a day 70% More than 10 transactions a week 40% More than 10 transactions a month 10% Less than 10 transactions a month 0% No activity

Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

0x37adC35F7B12582240818df04aaC04CA409D5913 is the Etherscan verified contract address.

Does the code match a tagged version on a code hosting platform? (%)

Answer: 60%

Matching 4/5 of the files I tested was easy, but I couldn't find evidence for the last file's code.

Guidance:

100% All code matches and Repository was clearly labelled 60 % All code matches but no labelled repository. Repository was found manually 30% Almost all code does match perfectly and repository was found manually 0% Most matching Code could not be found

GitHub address : https://github.com/DODOEX

Deployed contracts in the following file;

Matching Repository: https://github.com/DODOEX/dodo-smart-contract/tree/master/contracts

How to improve this score

Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Ensure an appropriately labeled tag exists corresponding to deployment dates. Release tags are clearly communicated.

Is development software repository healthy? (%)

Answer: 100%

With three branches and 99 commits, this is a healthy repository.

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

Required questions are;

  1. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

  2. Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)

  3. Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

  4. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

  5. Is it possible to trace software requirements to the implementation in code (%)

Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://dodoex.github.io/docs/docs/

Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://dodoex.github.io/docs/docs/contractUseGuide

Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 80%

Their documentation covers the most important functions with clear code traceability, but it does not cover all functions.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding content to the requirements document such that it comprehensively covers the requirements. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document . Using tools that aid traceability detection will help.

Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 60%

The comments present did not go into much detail, however the documentation of the code on the website does make up for some of the lost points there.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 13% commenting to code.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding comments to the deployed code such that it comprehensively covers the code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth Software Requirements.

Is it possible to trace requirements to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 80%

There's clear, explicit traceability between their code within their documentation. However, they don't cover all the functions.

Guidance: 100% - Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code 60% - Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability 40% - Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions 0% - No connection between documentation and code

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding traceability from requirements to code such that it is clear where each requirement is coded. For reference, check the SecurEth guidelines on traceability.

Testing

This section looks at the software testing available. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;

  1. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

  2. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

  3. Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

  4. Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

  5. Report of the results (%)

  6. Formal Verification test done (%)

  7. Stress Testing environment (%)

Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 100%

There are obvious tests that have been done, as well as Kovan addresses published. However, there is no apparent report of results.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding tests to fully cover the code. Document what is covered by traceability or test results in the software repository.

Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 50%

There is no indication of code coverage evident. It is clear there is a reasonable complete set of tests, but there is no formal way of verifying what the actual coverage is.

Guidance: 100% - Documented full coverage 99-51% - Value of test coverage from documented results 50% - No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a reasonably complete set of tests 30% - Some tests evident but not complete 0% - No test for coverage seen

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding tests achieving full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

Answer: No

The scripts, as well as the Kovan addresses are present, but there is no indication on how to run the tests in the documentation.

How to improve this score

Add the scripts to the repository and ensure they work. Ask an outsider to create the environment and run the tests. Improve the scripts and docs based on their feedback.

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evident report of the testing results.

How to improve this score

Add a report with the results. The test scripts should generate the report or elements of it.

Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of a formal verification test having been done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

There is evidence that there has been stress testing done on the Kovan Test network.

One of the tested contracts:

https://kovan.etherscan.io/address/0x5eca15b12d959dfcf9c71c59f8b467eb8c6efd0b

Audits

Answer: 100%

DODO has 2 solid audits from strong players before deployments with changes implemented.

PeckShield Audit: July 2020

Trail of Bits Audit: September 2020

Guidance:

  1. Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (100%)

  2. Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (90%)

  3. Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public. (70%)

  4. No audit performed (20%)

  5. Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address' not found, question 1 (0%)

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of Caliburn Consulting.

Email : rex@defisafety.com Twitter : @defisafety

I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education. It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process. Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.

I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development.

Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development.

Career wise I am a business development manager for an avionics supplier.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

*/
/**
* @title DODOZoo
* @author DODO Breeder
*
* @notice Register of All DODO
*/
contract DODOZoo is Ownable {
address public _DODO_LOGIC_;
address public _CLONE_FACTORY_;
address public _DEFAULT_SUPERVISOR_;
mapping(address => mapping(address => address)) internal _DODO_REGISTER_;
address[] public _DODOs;
// ============ Events ============
event DODOBirth(address newBorn, address baseToken, address quoteToken);
// ============ Constructor Function ============
constructor(
address _dodoLogic,
address _cloneFactory,
address _defaultSupervisor
) public {
_DODO_LOGIC_ = _dodoLogic;
_CLONE_FACTORY_ = _cloneFactory;
_DEFAULT_SUPERVISOR_ = _defaultSupervisor;
}
// ============ Admin Function ============
function setDODOLogic(address _dodoLogic) external onlyOwner {
_DODO_LOGIC_ = _dodoLogic;
}
function setCloneFactory(address _cloneFactory) external onlyOwner {
_CLONE_FACTORY_ = _cloneFactory;
}
function setDefaultSupervisor(address _defaultSupervisor) external onlyOwner {
_DEFAULT_SUPERVISOR_ = _defaultSupervisor;
}
function removeDODO(address dodo) external onlyOwner {
address baseToken = IDODO(dodo)._BASE_TOKEN_();
address quoteToken = IDODO(dodo)._QUOTE_TOKEN_();
require(isDODORegistered(baseToken, quoteToken), "DODO_NOT_REGISTERED");
_DODO_REGISTER_[baseToken][quoteToken] = address(0);
for (uint256 i = 0; i < _DODOs.length - 1; i++) {
if (_DODOs[i] == dodo) {
_DODOs[i] = _DODOs[_DODOs.length - 1];
_DODOs.pop();
break;
}
}
}
function addDODO(address dodo) public onlyOwner {
address baseToken = IDODO(dodo)._BASE_TOKEN_();
address quoteToken = IDODO(dodo)._QUOTE_TOKEN_();
require(!isDODORegistered(baseToken, quoteToken), "DODO_REGISTERED");
_DODO_REGISTER_[baseToken][quoteToken] = dodo;
_DODOs.push(dodo);
}
// ============ Breed DODO Function ============
function breedDODO(
address maintainer,
address baseToken,
address quoteToken,
address oracle,
uint256 lpFeeRate,
uint256 mtFeeRate,
uint256 k,
uint256 gasPriceLimit
) external onlyOwner returns (address newBornDODO) {
require(!isDODORegistered(baseToken, quoteToken), "DODO_REGISTERED");
newBornDODO = ICloneFactory(_CLONE_FACTORY_).clone(_DODO_LOGIC_);
IDODO(newBornDODO).init(
_OWNER_,
_DEFAULT_SUPERVISOR_,
maintainer,
baseToken,
quoteToken,
oracle,
lpFeeRate,
mtFeeRate,
k,
gasPriceLimit
);
addDODO(newBornDODO);
emit DODOBirth(newBornDODO, baseToken, quoteToken);
return newBornDODO;
}
// ============ View Functions ============
function isDODORegistered(address baseToken, address quoteToken) public view returns (bool) {
if (
_DODO_REGISTER_[baseToken][quoteToken] == address(0) &&
_DODO_REGISTER_[quoteToken][baseToken] == address(0)
) {
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}
function getDODO(address baseToken, address quoteToken) external view returns (address) {
return _DODO_REGISTER_[baseToken][quoteToken];
}
function getDODOs() external view returns (address[] memory) {
return _DODOs;
}
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

13

1611

298

157

1156

103

Comments to Code 157/ 1156 = 13%

Typescript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

TypeScript

8

2012

532

122

1358

59

Tests to Code 1358 / 1959 = 70%