Finished Reviews

Notional Finance Process Quality Review

Score: 79%

This is a Process Quality Review of Notional Finance completed on 10 February, 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6.1) and is documented here. The review was performed by Lucas of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 79%, a clear 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.

  • Here are my smart contracts on the blockchain

  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do

  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract

  • Here are the audit(s) performed on 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, token, 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. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. 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.

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Code and Team

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 addresses readily available? (Y/N)

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

  3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

  4. Is there a development history visible? (%)

  5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

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

Answer: Yes

They are available at website https://github.com/notional-finance/contracts/blob/master/mainnet.json as indicated in the Appendix.

How to improve this score

Make the Ethereum addresses of the smart contract utilized by your application available on either your website or your GitHub (in the README for instance). Ensure the addresses is up to date. This is a very important question wrt to the final score.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 10 transactions a day on contract InitializableAdminUpgradeabilityProxy.sol , 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

Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

GitHub: https://github.com/notional-finance/contracts​

Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but normally test and scripts also (Y/N). Even if the repo was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a Yes. For teams with private repos, this answer is No.

​

Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 70%

With 73 commits and 9 branches, this is a semi-healthy repository.

This checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).

Guidance: 100% Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches 70% Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches 50% Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches 30% Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches 0% Less than 2 branches or less than 10 commits

How to improve this score

Continue to test and perform other verification activities after deployment, including routine maintenance updating to new releases of testing and deployment tools. A public development history indicates clearly to the public the level of continued investment and activity by the developers on the application. This gives a level of security and faith in the application.

Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

The team is public, at least on discord.

For a yes in this question the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation. If the team is anonymous and then this question is a No.

​

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 software functions documented? (Y/N)

  3. Does the software function documentation 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 from software documentation to the implementation in codee (%)

Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

How to improve this score

Ensure the white paper is available for download from your website or at least the software repository. Ideally update the whitepaper to meet the capabilities of your present application.

​

Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

The basic software functions are well-documented on their Developer documentation.​

How to improve this score

Write the document based on the deployed code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document.

​

Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 80%

All of the major functions are well-documented.

Guidance:

100% All contracts and functions documented 80% Only the major functions documented 79-1% Estimate of the level of software documentation 0% No software documentation

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: 67%

There are a reasonable amount of comments present in the code.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 67% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Guidance: 100% CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code 90-70% CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code 60-20% CtC > 20 Some useful commenting 0% CtC < 20 No useful commenting

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 from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 40%

The documentation lists all the functions and describes their 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

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%

with a TtC of 122%, there is clearly a robust test suite.

This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However the reviewers best judgement is the final deciding factor.

Guidance: 100% TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible 80% TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible 40% TtC < 80% Some tests visible 0% No tests obvious

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, but there is clearly a complete set of tests.

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: Yes

Location: https://github.com/notional-finance/contracts​

​

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://github.com/notional-finance/contracts​

​

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evident report of their results.

Guidance: 100% - Detailed test report as described below 70% - GitHub Code coverage report visible 0% - No test report evident

​

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 evident formal verification testing having been done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

With published kovan and Rinkeby, there is clearly a complete stress-testing of the protocol.

Audits

Answer: 70%

​Notional has been audited by OpenZeppelin on December 22nd, 2020.

Notional Finance was released October 7th, 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 DeFi Safety.

Email : [email protected]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.

DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-only
pragma solidity ^0.6.0;
pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
​
import "./lib/SafeUInt128.sol";
import "./lib/SafeInt256.sol";
import "./lib/ABDKMath64x64.sol";
import "./lib/SafeMath.sol";
​
import "./utils/Governed.sol";
import "./utils/Common.sol";
​
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/utils/SafeCast.sol";
​
/**
* @title CashMarket
* @notice Marketplace for trading cash to fCash tokens. Implements a specialized AMM for trading such assets.
*/
contract CashMarket is Governed {
using SafeUInt128 for uint128;
using SafeMath for uint256;
using SafeInt256 for int256;
​
// This is used in _tradeCalculation to shift the ln calculation
int128 internal constant PRECISION_64x64 = 0x3b9aca000000000000000000;
uint256 internal constant MAX64 = 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF;
int64 internal constant LN_1E18 = 0x09a667e259;
bool internal constant CHECK_FC = true;
bool internal constant DEFER_CHECK = false;
​
/**
* @dev skip
*/
function initializeDependencies() external {
// Setting dependencies can only be done once here. With proxy contracts the addresses shouldn't
// change as we upgrade the logic.
Governed.CoreContracts[] memory dependencies = new Governed.CoreContracts[](3);
dependencies[0] = CoreContracts.Escrow;
dependencies[1] = CoreContracts.Portfolios;
dependencies[2] = CoreContracts.ERC1155Trade;
_setDependencies(dependencies);
}
​
// Defines the fields for each market in each maturity.
struct Market {
// Total amount of fCash available for purchase in the market.
uint128 totalfCash;
// Total amount of liquidity tokens (representing a claim on liquidity) in the market.
uint128 totalLiquidity;
// Total amount of cash available for purchase in the market.
uint128 totalCurrentCash;
// These factors are set when the market is instantiated by a liquidity provider via the global
// settings and then held constant for the duration of the maturity. We cannot change them without
// really messing up the market rates.
uint16 rateScalar;
uint32 rateAnchor;
// This is the implied rate that we use to smooth the anchor rate between trades.
uint32 lastImpliedRate;
}
​
// This is a mapping between a maturity and its corresponding market.
mapping(uint32 => Market) public markets;
​
/********** Governance Parameters *********************/
​
// These next parameters are set by the Portfolios contract and are immutable, except for G_NUM_MATURITIES
uint8 public CASH_GROUP;
uint32 internal constant INSTRUMENT_PRECISION = 1e9;
uint32 public G_MATURITY_LENGTH;
uint32 public G_NUM_MATURITIES;
​
// These are governance parameters for the market itself and can be set by the owner.
​
// The maximum trade size denominated in local currency
uint128 public G_MAX_TRADE_SIZE;
​
// The y-axis shift of the rate curve
uint32 public G_RATE_ANCHOR;
// The slope of the rate curve
uint16 public G_RATE_SCALAR;
// The fee in basis points given to liquidity providers
uint32 public G_LIQUIDITY_FEE;
// The fee as a percentage of the cash traded given to the protocol
uint128 public G_TRANSACTION_FEE;
​
/**
* @notice Sets governance parameters on the rate oracle.
* @dev skip
* @param cashGroupId this cannot change once set
* @param precision will only take effect on a new maturity
* @param maturityLength will take effect immediately, must be careful
* @param numMaturities will take effect immediately, makers can create new markets
*/
function setParameters(
uint8 cashGroupId,
uint16 /* instrumentId */,
uint32 precision,
uint32 maturityLength,
uint32 numMaturities,
uint32 /* maxRate */
) external {
require(calledByPortfolios(), $$(ErrorCode(UNAUTHORIZED_CALLER)));
​
// These values cannot be reset once set.
if (CASH_GROUP == 0) {
CASH_GROUP = cashGroupId;
}
​
require(precision == 1e9, $$(ErrorCode(INVALID_INSTRUMENT_PRECISION)));
G_MATURITY_LENGTH = maturityLength;
G_NUM_MATURITIES = numMaturities;
}
​
/**
* @notice Sets rate factors that will determine the liquidity curve. Rate Anchor is set as the target annualized exchange
* rate so 1.10 * INSTRUMENT_PRECISION represents a target annualized rate of 10%. Rate anchor will be scaled accordingly
* when a fCash market is initialized. As a general default, INSTRUMENT_PRECISION will be set to 1e9.
* @dev governance
* @param rateAnchor the offset of the liquidity curve
* @param rateScalar the sensitivity of the liquidity curve to changes
*/
function setRateFactors(uint32 rateAnchor, uint16 rateScalar) external onlyOwner {
require(rateScalar > 0 && rateAnchor > 0, $$(ErrorCode(INVALID_RATE_FACTORS)));
G_RATE_SCALAR = rateScalar;
G_RATE_ANCHOR = rateAnchor;
​
emit UpdateRateFactors(rateAnchor, rateScalar);
}
​
/**
* @notice Sets the maximum amount that can be traded in a single trade.
* @dev governance
* @param amount the max trade size
*/
function setMaxTradeSize(uint128 amount) external onlyOwner {
G_MAX_TRADE_SIZE = amount;
​
emit UpdateMaxTradeSize(amount);
}
​
/**
* @notice Sets fee parameters for the market. Liquidity Fees are set as basis points and shift the traded
* exchange rate. A basis point is the equivalent of 1e5 if INSTRUMENT_PRECISION is set to 1e9.
* Transaction fees are set as a percentage shifted by 1e18. For example a 1% transaction fee will be set
* as 1.01e18.
* @dev governance
* @param liquidityFee a change in the traded exchange rate paid to liquidity providers
* @param transactionFee percentage of a transaction that accrues to the reserve account
*/
function setFee(uint32 liquidityFee, uint128 transactionFee) external onlyOwner {
G_LIQUIDITY_FEE = liquidityFee;
G_TRANSACTION_FEE = transactionFee;
​
emit UpdateFees(liquidityFee, transactionFee);
}
​
/********** Governance Parameters *********************/
​
/********** Events ************************************/
/**
* @notice Emitted when rate factors are updated, will take effect at the next maturity
* @param rateAnchor the new rate anchor
* @param rateScalar the new rate scalar
*/
event UpdateRateFactors(uint32 rateAnchor, uint16 rateScalar);
​
/**
* @notice Emitted when max trade size is updated, takes effect immediately
* @param maxTradeSize the new max trade size
*/
event UpdateMaxTradeSize(uint128 maxTradeSize);
​
/**
* @notice Emitted when fees are updated, takes effect immediately
* @param liquidityFee the new liquidity fee
* @param transactionFee the new transaction fee
*/
event UpdateFees(uint32 liquidityFee, uint128 transactionFee);
​
/**
* @notice Emitted when liquidity is added to a maturity
* @param account the account that performed the trade
* @param maturity the maturity that this trade affects
* @param tokens amount of liquidity tokens issued
* @param fCash amount of fCash tokens added
* @param cash amount of cash tokens added
*/
event AddLiquidity(
address indexed account,
uint32 maturity,
uint128 tokens,
uint128 fCash,
uint128 cash
);
​
/**
* @notice Emitted when liquidity is removed from a maturity
* @param account the account that performed the trade
* @param maturity the maturity that this trade affects
* @param tokens amount of liquidity tokens burned
* @param fCash amount of fCash tokens removed
* @param cash amount of cash tokens removed
*/
event RemoveLiquidity(
address indexed account,
uint32 maturity,
uint128 tokens,
uint128 fCash,
uint128 cash
);
​
/**
* @notice Emitted when cash is taken from a maturity
* @param account the account that performed the trade
* @param maturity the maturity that this trade affects
* @param fCash amount of fCash tokens added
* @param cash amount of cash tokens removed
* @param fee amount of transaction fee charged
*/
event TakeCurrentCash(address indexed account, uint32 maturity, uint128 fCash, uint128 cash, uint128 fee);
​
/**
* @notice Emitted when fCash is taken from a maturity
* @param account the account that performed the trade
* @param maturity the maturity that this trade affects
* @param fCash amount of fCash tokens removed
* @param cash amount of cash tokens added
* @param fee amount of transaction fee charged
*/
event TakefCash(address indexed account, uint32 maturity, uint128 fCash, uint128 cash, uint128 fee);
​
/********** Events ************************************/
​
/********** Liquidity Tokens **************************/
​
/**
* @notice Adds some amount of cash to the liquidity pool up to the corresponding amount defined by
* `maxfCash`. Mints liquidity tokens back to the sender.
* @dev - TRADE_FAILED_MAX_TIME: maturity specified is not yet active
* - MARKET_INACTIVE: maturity is not a valid one
* - OVER_MAX_FCASH: fCash amount required exceeds supplied maxfCash
* - OUT_OF_IMPLIED_RATE_BOUNDS: depositing cash would require more fCash than specified
* - INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE: insufficient cash to deposit into market
* @param maturity the maturity to add liquidity to
* @param cash the amount of cash to add to the pool
* @param maxfCash the max amount of fCash to add to the pool. When initializing a pool this is the
* amount of fCash that will be added.
* @param minImpliedRate the minimum implied rate that we will add liquidity at
* @param maxImpliedRate the maximum implied rate that we will add liquidity at
* @param maxTime after this time the trade will fail
*/
function addLiquidity(
uint32 maturity,
uint128 cash,
uint128 maxfCash,
uint32 minImpliedRate,
uint32 maxImpliedRate,
uint32 maxTime
) external {
Common.Asset[] memory assets = _addLiquidity(
msg.sender,
maturity,
cash,
maxfCash,
minImpliedRate,
maxImpliedRate,
maxTime
);
​
// This will do a free collateral check before it adds to the portfolio.
Portfolios().upsertAccountAssetBatch(msg.sender, assets, CHECK_FC);
}
​
/**
* @notice Used by ERC1155 contract to add liquidity
* @dev skip
*/
function addLiquidityOnBehalf(
address account,
uint32 maturity,
uint128 cash,
uint128 maxfCash,
uint32 minImpliedRate,
uint32 maxImpliedRate
) external {
require(calledByERC1155Trade(), $$(ErrorCode(UNAUTHORIZED_CALLER)));
​
Common.Asset[] memory assets = _addLiquidity(
account,
maturity,
cash,
maxfCash,
minImpliedRate,
maxImpliedRate,
uint32(block.timestamp)
);
​
Portfolios().upsertAccountAssetBatch(account, assets, DEFER_CHECK);
}
​
function _addLiquidity(
address account,
uint32 maturity,
uint128 cash,
uint128 maxfCash,
uint32 minImpliedRate,
uint32 maxImpliedRate,
uint32 maxTime
) internal returns (Common.Asset[] memory) {
_isValidBlock(maturity, maxTime);
uint32 timeToMaturity = maturity - uint32(block.timestamp);
Market memory market = markets[maturity];
​
uint128 fCash;
uint128 liquidityTokenAmount;
if (market.totalLiquidity == 0) {
// We check the rateScalar to determine if the market exists or not. The reason for this is that once we
// initialize a market we will set the rateScalar and rateAnchor based on global values for the duration
// of the market. The proportion of fCash to cash that the first liquidity provider sets here will
// determine the initial exchange rate of the market (taking into account rateScalar and rateAnchor, of course).
// Governance will never allow rateScalar to be set to 0.
if (market.rateScalar == 0) {
market.rateScalar = G_RATE_SCALAR;
}
​
// G_RATE_ANCHOR is stored as the annualized rate. Here we normalize it to the rate that is required given the
// time to maturity. (RATE_ANCHOR - 1) * timeToMaturity / SECONDS_IN_YEAR + 1
market.rateAnchor = SafeCast.toUint32(
uint256(G_RATE_ANCHOR)
.sub(INSTRUMENT_PRECISION)
.mul(timeToMaturity)
.div(Common.SECONDS_IN_YEAR)
.add(INSTRUMENT_PRECISION)
);
​
market.totalfCash = maxfCash;
market.totalCurrentCash = cash;
market.totalLiquidity = cash;
// We have to initialize this to the exchange rate implied by the proportion of cash to fCash.
uint32 impliedRate = _getImpliedRateRequire(market, timeToMaturity);
require(minImpliedRate <= maxImpliedRate
&& minImpliedRate <= impliedRate && impliedRate <= maxImpliedRate,
$$(ErrorCode(OUT_OF_IMPLIED_RATE_BOUNDS))
);
market.lastImpliedRate = impliedRate;
​
liquidityTokenAmount = cash;
fCash = maxfCash;
} else {
// We calculate the amount of liquidity tokens to mint based on the share of the fCash
// that the liquidity provider is depositing.
liquidityTokenAmount = SafeCast.toUint128(
uint256(market.totalLiquidity).mul(cash).div(market.totalCurrentCash)
);
​
// We use the prevailing proportion to calculate the required amount of current cash to deposit.
fCash = SafeCast.toUint128(uint256(market.totalfCash).mul(cash).div(market.totalCurrentCash));
require(fCash <= maxfCash, $$(ErrorCode(OVER_MAX_FCASH)));
​
// Add the fCash and cash to the pool.
market.totalfCash = market.totalfCash.add(fCash);
market.totalCurrentCash = market.totalCurrentCash.add(cash);
market.totalLiquidity = market.totalLiquidity.add(liquidityTokenAmount);
​
// If this proportion has moved beyond what the liquidity provider is willing to pay then we
// will revert here. The implied rate will not change when liquidity is added.
require(minImpliedRate <= maxImpliedRate
&& minImpliedRate <= market.lastImpliedRate && market.lastImpliedRate <= maxImpliedRate,
$$(ErrorCode(OUT_OF_IMPLIED_RATE_BOUNDS))
);
​
}
​
markets[maturity] = market;
​
// Move the cash into the contract's cash balances account. This must happen before the trade
// is placed so that the free collateral check is correct.
Escrow().depositIntoMarket(account, CASH_GROUP, cash, 0);
​
// Providing liquidity results in two tokens generated, a liquidity token and a CASH_PAYER which
// represents the obligation that offsets the fCash in the market.
Common.Asset[] memory assets = new Common.Asset[](2);
// This is the liquidity token
assets[0] = Common.Asset(
CASH_GROUP,
0,
maturity,
Common.getLiquidityToken(),
0,
liquidityTokenAmount
);
​
// This is the CASH_PAYER
assets[1] = Common.Asset(
CASH_GROUP,
0,
maturity,
Common.getCashPayer(),
0,
fCash
);
​
emit AddLiquidity(account, maturity, liquidityTokenAmount, fCash, cash);
​
return assets;
}
​
/**
* @notice Removes liquidity from the fCash market. The sender's liquidity tokens are burned and they
* are credited back with fCash and cash at the prevailing exchange rate. This function
* only works when removing liquidity from an active market. For markets that are matured, the sender
* must settle their liquidity token via `Portfolios.settleMaturedAssets`.
* @dev - TRADE_FAILED_MAX_TIME: maturity specified is not yet active
* - MARKET_INACTIVE: maturity is not a valid one
* - INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE: account does not have sufficient tokens to remove
* @param maturity the maturity to remove liquidity from
* @param amount the amount of liquidity tokens to burn
* @param maxTime after this block the trade will fail
* @return the amount of cash claim the removed liquidity tokens have
*/
function removeLiquidity(
uint32 maturity,
uint128 amount,
uint32 maxTime
) external returns (uint128) {
(Common.Asset[] memory assets, uint128 cash) = _removeLiquidity(
msg.sender,
maturity,
amount,
maxTime
);
​

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

46

9291

1075

2900

4306

520

Comments to Code 2900/4306 = 67%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

11

6244

838

115

5291

62

Tests to Code 5291/4306 = 122%