Finished Reviews

Rari Capital Process Quality Review

Score: 74%

This is a Process Quality Review of Rari.Capital completed on 3/15/2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.6.2) and is documented here. The review was performed by Lucas of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the review is 74%, a pass. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix. For our purposes, a pass is 70%.

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://www.notion.so/Important-Addresses-84a1ea063dc14c7dba750527f8672840 as indicated in the Appendix.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 80 transactions a day on contract AdminUpgradeabilityProxy.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/Rari-Capital

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: 100%

With 333 commits and 2 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

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

Their documentation has a list of their team members here.

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

Their software function documentation is tough to find, as it is tucked away in the USAGE.MD file in their respective repositories. However, in there all major functions are appropriately documented.

Example 1

Example 2

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 Major functions are 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: 90%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 94% 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: 60%

there is a clear association between the code and the documentation via non-explicit 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? (%)

Answer: 40%

With a TtC ratio of 75%, there is a barely adequete test suite availible.

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: 30%

There is no indication of Code Coverage but there are clearly some tests present.

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

Instructions to run the tests can be found in the respective contract on their GitHub.

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

All of the tests are present in the respective contract directories on their GitHub.

How to improve this score

Improving this score requires redeployment of the code, with the tests. This score gives credit to those who test their code before deployment and release them together. If a developer adds tests after deployment they can gain full points for all test elements except this one.

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no published report of the 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%

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

There are no published Kovan or ropsten testnet addresses.

Audits

Answer: 70%

Rari capital was released in October 20th.

Quantstamp did an audit in December 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: No License
pragma solidity ^0.7.3;
/**
* @dev Protocol contract interface. See {Protocol}.
*/
interface IProtocol {
/// @notice emit when a claim against the protocol is accepted
event ClaimAccepted(uint256 newClaimNonce);
function getProtocolDetails()
external view returns (
bytes32 _name,
bool _active,
uint256 _claimNonce,
uint256 _claimRedeemDelay,
uint256 _noclaimRedeemDelay,
address[] memory _collaterals,
uint48[] memory _expirationTimestamps,
address[] memory _allCovers,
address[] memory _allActiveCovers
);
function active() external view returns (bool);
function name() external view returns (bytes32);
function claimNonce() external view returns (uint256);
/// @notice delay # of seconds for redeem with accepted claim, redeemCollateral is not affected
function claimRedeemDelay() external view returns (uint256);
/// @notice delay # of seconds for redeem without accepted claim, redeemCollateral is not affected
function noclaimRedeemDelay() external view returns (uint256);
function activeCovers(uint256 _index) external view returns (address);
function claimDetails(uint256 _claimNonce) external view returns (uint16 _payoutNumerator, uint16 _payoutDenominator, uint48 _incidentTimestamp, uint48 _timestamp);
function collateralStatusMap(address _collateral) external view returns (uint8 _status);
function expirationTimestampMap(uint48 _expirationTimestamp) external view returns (bytes32 _name, uint8 _status);
function coverMap(address _collateral, uint48 _expirationTimestamp) external view returns (address);
function collaterals(uint256 _index) external view returns (address);
function collateralsLength() external view returns (uint256);
function expirationTimestamps(uint256 _index) external view returns (uint48);
function expirationTimestampsLength() external view returns (uint256);
function activeCoversLength() external view returns (uint256);
function claimsLength() external view returns (uint256);
function addCover(address _collateral, uint48 _timestamp, uint256 _amount)
external returns (bool);
/// @notice access restriction - claimManager
function enactClaim(uint16 _payoutNumerator, uint16 _payoutDenominator, uint48 _incidentTimestamp, uint256 _protocolNonce) external returns (bool);
/// @notice access restriction - dev
function setActive(bool _active) external returns (bool);
function updateExpirationTimestamp(uint48 _expirationTimestamp, bytes32 _expirationTimestampName, uint8 _status) external returns (bool);
function updateCollateral(address _collateral, uint8 _status) external returns (bool);
/// @notice access restriction - governance
function updateClaimRedeemDelay(uint256 _claimRedeemDelay) external returns (bool);
function updateNoclaimRedeemDelay(uint256 _noclaimRedeemDelay) external returns (bool);
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

23

5930

838

2480

2612

747

Comments to Code 2480/2612 = 94%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

22

3241

613

650

1978

175

Tests to Code 1978/2612 = 75%