Spaghetti $PASTA Process Quality Review

Score : 43%

This is a Process Quality Audit completed on Aug 21, 2020. It was performed using the Process Audit process (version 0.5) and is documented here. The audit was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the audit is 43%, a less than ideal result. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the audit 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 audited and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This audit will answer the questions;

  1. Is 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? (%)

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

Answer: Yes

They are available at Address 0x08A2E41FB99A7599725190B9C970Ad3893fa33CF as indicated in the Appendix. This Audit only covers the contract SpaghettiToken. It was relatively easy to find, in the readme of the GitHub. The contract is brand new, only deployed on 17 Aug, 4 days before this audit.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100

Activity is over 400 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

0x08A2E41FB99A7599725190B9C970Ad3893fa33CF is the Etherscan verified contract address.

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

Answer: 60%

Guidance:

100% Code matches and Repository was clearly labelled 60 % Code matches but no labelled repository. Repository was found manually 30% Code does match perfectly and repository was found manually 0% Matching Code could not be found

GitHub address : https://github.com/SpaghettiIsMoney/spaghetti-core/tree/master/src

Deployed contracts in the following file;

Matching Repository: https://github.com/SpaghettiIsMoney/spaghetti-core/tree/master/src

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: 40%

This repo has 17 commits and 3 branches. The GitHub is only 8 days old. There is a V2 under development. The concern here is the project was pulled together in very short time with little development or test.

How to improve this score

Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Continue to test and perform other verification activities after deployment, including routine maintenance updating to new releases of testing and deployment tools.

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: No

The authors seem proud of having no documentation or audits.

Location: ??

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 application requirements documented? (Y/N)

Answer: No

No protocol documentation is evident.

Location: ??

How to improve this score

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

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

Answer: No

With absolutely no documentation, this score must be 0.

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: 10%

There is virtually no commenting, though at less than 200 lines, there is not much code to comment.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 2% 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: 0%

With no requirements, there can be no 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: 100%

There is one evident test module (SpagettiCore.t.sol). At 138% test to code, it appears complete, but light

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%

With no test report or visible coverage, but at least test that would give some coverage, then the 50% score is required.

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

Test.sh and instructions for set up are included.

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No report of test results visible.

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%

No evidence of formal validation.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of a stress test environment or even a test run on Rinkeby.

Audits

Answer: 20%

They clearly state these are unaudited contracts

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 and they admit it. (20%)

  5. Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed (0%)

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this audit is Rex of Caliburn Consulting.

Email : rex@caliburnc.com Twitter : @ShinkaRex

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 Audits 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

pragma solidity ^0.5.0;
contract IRewardDistributionRecipient is Ownable {
address public rewardDistribution;
function notifyRewardAmount(uint256 reward) external;
modifier onlyRewardDistribution() {
require(_msgSender() == rewardDistribution, "Caller is not reward distribution");
_;
}
function setRewardDistribution(address _rewardDistribution)
external
onlyOwner
{
rewardDistribution = _rewardDistribution;
}
}
// File: contracts/CurveRewards.sol
pragma solidity ^0.5.0;
contract LPTokenWrapper {
using SafeMath for uint256;
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
IERC20 public lpt;
uint256 private _totalSupply;
mapping(address => uint256) private _balances;
function totalSupply() public view returns (uint256) {
return _totalSupply;
}
function balanceOf(address account) public view returns (uint256) {
return _balances[account];
}
function stake(uint256 amount) public {
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.add(amount);
_balances[msg.sender] = _balances[msg.sender].add(amount);
lpt.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount);
}
function withdraw(uint256 amount) public {
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.sub(amount);
_balances[msg.sender] = _balances[msg.sender].sub(amount);
lpt.safeTransfer(msg.sender, amount);
}
}
contract PASTAPool is LPTokenWrapper, IRewardDistributionRecipient {
IERC20 public spaghetti;
uint256 public DURATION = 7 days;
uint256 public starttime = 1597795200;
uint256 public periodFinish = 0;
uint256 public rewardRate = 0;
uint256 public lastUpdateTime;
uint256 public rewardPerTokenStored;
mapping(address => uint256) public userRewardPerTokenPaid;
mapping(address => uint256) public rewards;
event RewardAdded(uint256 reward);
event Staked(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
event Withdrawn(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
event RewardPaid(address indexed user, uint256 reward);
constructor(address _spaghetti, address _lptoken) public {
spaghetti = IERC20(_spaghetti);
lpt = IERC20(_lptoken);
}
modifier checkStart() {
require(block.timestamp >= starttime,"not start");
_;
}
modifier updateReward(address account) {
rewardPerTokenStored = rewardPerToken();
lastUpdateTime = lastTimeRewardApplicable();
if (account != address(0)) {
rewards[account] = earned(account);
userRewardPerTokenPaid[account] = rewardPerTokenStored;
}
_;
}
function lastTimeRewardApplicable() public view returns (uint256) {
return Math.min(block.timestamp, periodFinish);
}
function rewardPerToken() public view returns (uint256) {
if (totalSupply() == 0) {
return rewardPerTokenStored;
}
return
rewardPerTokenStored.add(
lastTimeRewardApplicable()
.sub(lastUpdateTime)
.mul(rewardRate)
.mul(1e18)
.div(totalSupply())
);
}
function earned(address account) public view returns (uint256) {
return
balanceOf(account)
.mul(rewardPerToken().sub(userRewardPerTokenPaid[account]))
.div(1e18)
.add(rewards[account]);
}
// stake visibility is public as overriding LPTokenWrapper's stake() function
function stake(uint256 amount) public updateReward(msg.sender) checkStart {
require(amount > 0, "Cannot stake 0");
super.stake(amount);
emit Staked(msg.sender, amount);
}
function withdraw(uint256 amount) public updateReward(msg.sender) checkStart {
require(amount > 0, "Cannot withdraw 0");
super.withdraw(amount);
emit Withdrawn(msg.sender, amount);
}
function exit() external {
withdraw(balanceOf(msg.sender));
getReward();
}
function getReward() public updateReward(msg.sender) checkStart {
uint256 reward = earned(msg.sender);
if (reward > 0) {
rewards[msg.sender] = 0;
spaghetti.safeTransfer(msg.sender, reward);
emit RewardPaid(msg.sender, reward);
}
}
function notifyRewardAmount(uint256 reward)
external
onlyRewardDistribution
updateReward(address(0))
{
if (block.timestamp > starttime) {
if (block.timestamp >= periodFinish) {
rewardRate = reward.div(DURATION);
} else {
uint256 remaining = periodFinish.sub(block.timestamp);
uint256 leftover = remaining.mul(rewardRate);
rewardRate = reward.add(leftover).div(DURATION);
}
lastUpdateTime = block.timestamp;
periodFinish = block.timestamp.add(DURATION);
emit RewardAdded(reward);
} else {
rewardRate = reward.div(DURATION);
lastUpdateTime = starttime;
periodFinish = starttime.add(DURATION);
emit RewardAdded(reward);
}
}
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

2

231

45

3

183

16

Comments to Code 3/ 183 = 2%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

1

286

30

2

254

0

Tests to Code 254/ 183= 138%