SakeSwap PQ Review

Score : 53%

This is a SakeSwap Process Quality Review completed on October 19, 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 53%, a 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 https://github.com/Sakeswap/sakeswap-protocol as indicated in the Appendix. This review only covers the contract SakeMaster.sol.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 103 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

0x0EC1f1573f3a2dB0Ad396c843E6a079e2a53e557 is the Etherscan verified contract address.

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

Answer: 100%

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/Sakeswap/sakeswap-protocol

Deployed contracts in the following file;

Matching Repository: https://github.com/Sakeswap/sakeswap-protocol/tree/master/contracts

Is development software repository healthy? (%)

Answer: 60%

With 1 Branch and 74 Commits, this is a pretty thin repo.

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://medium.com/@sakeswap/introducing-sakeswap-and-sake-token-8638d50b0b58

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

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: 50%

Application requirements are documented within the code itself. there is no external documentation of the code. Also some contracts have no commenting (and thus no 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: 80%

All functions are well-documented within the code. This is well-written, and well detailed.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 86% commenting to code.

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

Answer: 60%

There is no formal documentation of this code. All documentation is within the code. This keeps effective traceability, because the docs and code are associated. So 60%.

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%

Test have been made in 2 directories in both javascript and solidity. There is a 96% test to code ratio.

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

Answer: 50%

There is no documentation that indicates code coverage, but there is clearly a reasonable 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: No

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

The testing suite is located in /sakeswap-protocol/blob/master/test

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 are no reports of the results apparent.

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 formal verification tests done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of stress test networks.

Audits

Answer: 0%

Audit was preformed after deployment by KnownSec. (Deployment was Sept. 8th, Audit was completed Sept 16th)

Based on my reading, this audit does not indicate that the code was reviewed and as such has no value. Sakeswap is a fork of sushiswap (it says in the Github). If you compare this audit report with the Quantstamp review it does not appear of value. How could sushiswap have 10 issues yet sakeswap just one (which is never defined in the report).

The KnownSec audit did read the solidity version (0.6) and paste some of the code into the report but other than that, all the passed tests never reference the code, the tokens the pools or anything else. The bulk of the report is generic solidity/blockchain info and the the bland info "After auditing, the relevant random number function is not used in the smart contract code". At the end they reference many excellent smart contract auditing tools, But no tool outputs (or versions) are given. Did they run these tests on the code? I don't know and the report does not say. I know these tools generally do just say PASS. The results need expert interpretation. No evidence of that here.

The bulk of this report could be a copy paste with a bunch of passes and the word SAFE added without reference to the code. 0%.

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

/**
*Submitted for verification at Etherscan.io on 2020-09-09
*/
// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT + WTFPL
pragma solidity ^0.6.0;
/**
* @dev Interface of the ERC20 standard as defined in the EIP.
*/
interface IERC20 {
/**
* @dev Returns the amount of tokens in existence.
*/
function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256);
/**
* @dev Returns the amount of tokens owned by `account`.
*/
function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256);
/**
* @dev Moves `amount` tokens from the caller's account to `recipient`.
*
* Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
*
* Emits a {Transfer} event.
*/
function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
/**
* @dev Returns the remaining number of tokens that `spender` will be
* allowed to spend on behalf of `owner` through {transferFrom}. This is
* zero by default.
*
* This value changes when {approve} or {transferFrom} are called.
*/
function allowance(address owner, address spender) external view returns (uint256);
/**
* @dev Sets `amount` as the allowance of `spender` over the caller's tokens.
*
* Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
*
* IMPORTANT: Beware that changing an allowance with this method brings the risk
* that someone may use both the old and the new allowance by unfortunate
* transaction ordering. One possible solution to mitigate this race
* condition is to first reduce the spender's allowance to 0 and set the
* desired value afterwards:
* https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/20#issuecomment-263524729
*
* Emits an {Approval} event.
*/
function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
/**
* @dev Moves `amount` tokens from `sender` to `recipient` using the
* allowance mechanism. `amount` is then deducted from the caller's
* allowance.
*
* Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
*
* Emits a {Transfer} event.
*/
function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
/**
* @dev Emitted when `value` tokens are moved from one account (`from`) to
* another (`to`).
*
* Note that `value` may be zero.
*/
event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
/**
* @dev Emitted when the allowance of a `spender` for an `owner` is set by
* a call to {approve}. `value` is the new allowance.
*/
event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
}
// File: @openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol
pragma solidity ^0.6.0;
/**
* @dev Wrappers over Solidity's arithmetic operations with added overflow
* checks.
*
* Arithmetic operations in Solidity wrap on overflow. This can easily result
* in bugs, because programmers usually assume that an overflow raises an
* error, which is the standard behavior in high level programming languages.
* `SafeMath` restores this intuition by reverting the transaction when an
* operation overflows.
*
* Using this library instead of the unchecked operations eliminates an entire
* class of bugs, so it's recommended to use it always.
*/
library SafeMath {
/**
* @dev Returns the addition of two unsigned integers, reverting on
* overflow.
*
* Counterpart to Solidity's `+` operator.
*
* Requirements:
*
* - Addition cannot overflow.
*/
function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
uint256 c = a + b;
require(c >= a, "SafeMath: addition overflow");
return c;
}
/**
* @dev Returns the subtraction of two unsigned integers, reverting on
* overflow (when the result is negative).
*
* Counterpart to Solidity's `-` operator.
*
* Requirements:
*
* - Subtraction cannot overflow.
*/
function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
return sub(a, b, "SafeMath: subtraction overflow");
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

4

5451

745

2181

2525

333

Comments to Code 2181/ 2525 = 86%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

19

2908

224

266

2418

16

Tests to Code 2418 / 2525 = 96%