This is a PLOTX Process Quality Review completed on 5 November 2020. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6) and is documented here. The review was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 88%, a very srong score. 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, 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.

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)

They are available at website https://github.com/plotx/smart-contracts/blob/master/README.md as indicated in the Appendix.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Activity is 60 transactions a day on contract MarketRegistry, 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)

The public software repository is located at: https://github.com/plotx/smart-contracts​

Is there a development history visible? (%)

With 757 commits and 11 branches, this is a 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

​

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

Information about the team can be found on: https://plotx.io/about/​

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 seems 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)

Location: https://docsend.com/view/nnea7um4434u49uh​

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

The major functions are described briefly in https://github.com/plotx/smart-contracts/blob/master/MajorFunctions.md.

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

The major functions are described briefly in https://github.com/plotx/smart-contracts/blob/master/MajorFunctions.md. The description do not include i/o only a short sentance per function.

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 (%)

There is clearly some useful commenting written in the code, however it is not very detailed.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 37% 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 (%)

With no software documentation, there is no way to show traceability.

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? (%)

The test to code ratio is 231%, an excellent ratio. There is clearly a full testing 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. Detailed overview present in the Appendix. ​

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) (%)

As indicated in the coveralls coverage is 96%. It would be nicer if this was applied to the deployed software, rather than the latest build. But we will take it.

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)

Location: https://github.com/plotx/smart-contracts​

​

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Location: https://github.com/plotx/smart-contracts/tree/master/test​

​

Report of the results (%)

The coveralls report shows coverage for the latest build. It is good, but does not meet all our requirements.

Formal Verification test done (%)

There is no evidence of formal verification testing having been done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

The author of the docs states that the software has been tested on the Kovan network and the Kovan addresses are included in the GitHub readme; https://github.com/plotx/smart-contracts/blob/master/README.md.

Audits

2 Audits have been preformed.

​CertiK audit preformed Oct 9 2020.​

​Mudit Gupta audit preformed Sept 20 2020.​

PlotX was released August 13th.

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

​
    /**
     * @dev Initialize the Master.
     * @param _implementations The address of market implementation.
     * @param _token The address of PLOT token.
     * @param _marketUtiliy The addresses of market utility.
     */
    function initiateMaster(
        address[] calldata _implementations,
        address _token,
        address _defaultAddress,
        address _marketUtiliy,
        address payable[] calldata _configParams,
        address _vesting
    ) external {
        OwnedUpgradeabilityProxy proxy = OwnedUpgradeabilityProxy(
            address(uint160(address(this)))
        );
        require(!masterInitialised);
        require(msg.sender == proxy.proxyOwner(), "Sender is not proxy owner.");
        masterInitialised = true;
​
        //Initial contract names
        allContractNames.push("MR");
        allContractNames.push("PC");
        allContractNames.push("GV");
        allContractNames.push("PL");
        allContractNames.push("TC");
        allContractNames.push("BL");
​
        require(
            allContractNames.length == _implementations.length,
            "Implementation length not match"
        );
        contractsActive[address(this)] = true;
        dAppToken = _token;
        for (uint256 i = 0; i < allContractNames.length; i++) {
            _generateProxy(allContractNames[i], _implementations[i]);
        }
        dAppLocker = contractAddress["TC"];
​
        _setMasterAddress();
​
        IMarketRegistry(contractAddress["PL"]).initiate(
            _defaultAddress,
            _marketUtiliy,
            _token,
            _configParams
        );
        IbLOTToken(contractAddress["BL"]).initiatebLOT(_defaultAddress);
        ITokenController(contractAddress["TC"]).initiateVesting(_vesting);
        IMemberRoles(contractAddress["MR"]).setInititorAddress(_defaultAddress);
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev adds a new contract type to master
     */
    function addNewContract(bytes2 _contractName, address _contractAddress)
        external
        onlyAuthorizedToGovern
    {
        require(_contractName != "MS", "Name cannot be master");
        require(_contractAddress != address(0), "Zero address");
        require(
            contractAddress[_contractName] == address(0),
            "Contract code already available"
        );
        allContractNames.push(_contractName);
        _generateProxy(_contractName, _contractAddress);
        Iupgradable up = Iupgradable(contractAddress[_contractName]);
        up.setMasterAddress();
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev upgrades a multiple contract implementations
     */
    function upgradeMultipleImplementations(
        bytes2[] calldata _contractNames,
        address[] calldata _contractAddresses
    ) external onlyAuthorizedToGovern {
        require(
            _contractNames.length == _contractAddresses.length,
            "Array length should be equal."
        );
        for (uint256 i = 0; i < _contractNames.length; i++) {
            require(
                _contractAddresses[i] != address(0),
                "null address is not allowed."
            );
            _replaceImplementation(_contractNames[i], _contractAddresses[i]);
        }
    }
​
    function whitelistSponsor(address _address) external onlyAuthorizedToGovern {
        whitelistedSponsor[_address] = true;
    }
​
    
    /**
     * @dev To check if we use the particular contract.
     * @param _address The contract address to check if it is active or not.
     */
    function isInternal(address _address) public view returns (bool) {
        return contractsActive[_address];
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev Gets latest contract address
     * @param _contractName Contract name to fetch
     */
    function getLatestAddress(bytes2 _contractName)
        public
        view
        returns (address)
    {
        return contractAddress[_contractName];
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev checks if an address is authorized to govern
     */
    function isAuthorizedToGovern(address _toCheck) public view returns (bool) {
        return (getLatestAddress("GV") == _toCheck);
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev Changes Master contract address
     */
    function _setMasterAddress() internal {
        for (uint256 i = 0; i < allContractNames.length; i++) {
            Iupgradable up = Iupgradable(contractAddress[allContractNames[i]]);
            up.setMasterAddress();
        }
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev Replaces the implementations of the contract.
     * @param _contractsName The name of the contract.
     * @param _contractAddress The address of the contract to replace the implementations for.
     */
    function _replaceImplementation(
        bytes2 _contractsName,
        address _contractAddress
    ) internal {
        OwnedUpgradeabilityProxy tempInstance = OwnedUpgradeabilityProxy(
            contractAddress[_contractsName]
        );
        tempInstance.upgradeTo(_contractAddress);
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev to generator proxy
     * @param _contractAddress of the proxy
     */
    function _generateProxy(bytes2 _contractName, address _contractAddress)
        internal
    {
        OwnedUpgradeabilityProxy tempInstance = new OwnedUpgradeabilityProxy(
            _contractAddress
        );
        contractAddress[_contractName] = address(tempInstance);
        contractsActive[address(tempInstance)] = true;
    }
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Comments to Code 1349/ 3564 = 37%

Javascript Tests

Tests to Code 8238 / 3564 = 231%