P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
UbeSwap Process Quality Review
Score: 74%

Overview

This is an UbeSwap Process Quality Review completed on 27/09/2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nick 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
    Here are the admin controls and strategies

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.

Chain

This section indicates the blockchain used by this protocol.
Chain: Celo
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche Terra Celo Arbitrum Solana

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 following questions:
1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%) 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)

1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)

Answer: 100%
They are available at website https://docs.ubeswap.org/code-and-contracts/contract-addresses, as indicated in the Appendix.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc 20% Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find 0% Executing addresses could not be found

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

Answer: 100
Activity is 500+ transactions a day on contract UbeswapRouter, as indicated in the Appendix.

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

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

Answer: Yes
Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No".

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

Answer: 100%
With 133 commits and 4 branches, UbeSwap has a steady development history.
This metric 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 30 commits

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

Answer: Yes
For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N) 7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N) 8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%) 9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%) 10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: Yes
The UbeSwap documentation mentions and describes their basic software functions such as those of the Farming, Governance, and Core contracts.

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

Answer: 100%
All contracts are documented in the gitbook.
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

9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 30%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 30% 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.

10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 60%
All deployed contracts are identified and there is some explicit traceability for a few of these contracts.
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 documentation to code such that it is clear where each outlined function is coded in the source code. 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;
11) Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%) 12) Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%) 13) Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N) 14) Report of the results (%) 15) Formal Verification test done (%) 16) Stress Testing environment (%)

11) Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 80%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 94% testing to code (TtC). No test suite could be found in their master repository, and an audit corroborates this. While this is a UniSwap/SushiSwap fork, UbeSwap operates on an entirely different blockchain to Ethereum, so the code should be comprehensively tested. Although it is not tested by the UbeSwap team, they have indicated what they have changed from the original Uni/Sushi code, and the difference isn't much, so therefore it is still rigorously-tested code.
However, there is a decent testing suite in their Farming and Governance repositories, which proves that Ubeswap does a good amount of testing on repositories that are not almost identical forks of other contracts.
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 0% testing to code (TtC).
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 improved by adding tests to fully cover the code. Document what is covered by traceability or test results in the software repository.

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

Answer: 50%
No evidence of testing could be found in the UbeSwap GitHub repositories. However, they do have a robust testing suite.
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 improved by adding tests that achieve full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

13) Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
No result report was found.
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.

15) Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%
No formal verification test was done.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
UbeSwap is deployed on the Alfajores Testnet.

Security

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%) 18) Is the bounty value acceptably high?

17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 100%
UbeSwap has had their Core contracts audited by Bramah Systems two months before the mainnet launch.
In addition, Bramah Systems published an audit report of the Governance contracts before their mainnet launch as well.
Guidance: 100% Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 90% Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 70% Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50% Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented 20% No audit performed 0% Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address' not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code

18) Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 0%
UbeSwap does not offer a bug bounty program.
Guidance:
100% Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below) 90% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program 80% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k 70% Bounty is 100k or over AND active program 60% Bounty is 100k or over 50% Bounty is 50k or over AND active program 40% Bounty is 50k or over 20% Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k 0% No bug bounty program offered
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Access Controls

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document. The questions this section asks are as follow;
19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the admin controls? 20) Is the information clear and complete? 21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments? 22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests?

19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 100%
Administrator controls are documented under admin privileges.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled 20% Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled 0% Admin Control information could not be found

20) Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 90%
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% -- Governance identifies which contracts are upgradeable.
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% -- for now governance is not live, but this is clearly indicated.
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30% -- capabilities for change are clearly documented in this governance section.
Guidance: All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above. An example is enclosed.

21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 30%
Although the descriptions of the governance contract functions are written in user-friendly language, they do not touch upon investment safety, or rather why their user funds are safe in relation to the various contracts' functions.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable 90% Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software l language 30% Description all in software specific language 0% No admin control information could not be found

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no pause control documentation.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 100% Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months 80% Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests 40% Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests 0% Pause control not documented or explained

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.
Email : [email protected] 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

1
import './libraries/UniswapV2Library.sol';
2
import './libraries/SafeMath.sol';
3
import './libraries/TransferHelper.sol';
4
import './interfaces/IUniswapV2Router02.sol';
5
import './interfaces/IUniswapV2Factory.sol';
6
import './interfaces/IERC20.sol';
7
8
contract UniswapV2Router02 is IUniswapV2Router02 {
9
using SafeMathUniswap for uint;
10
11
address public immutable override factory;
12
13
modifier ensure(uint deadline) {
14
require(deadline >= block.timestamp, 'UniswapV2Router: EXPIRED');
15
_;
16
}
17
18
constructor(address _factory) public {
19
factory = _factory;
20
}
21
22
// **** ADD LIQUIDITY ****
23
function _addLiquidity(
24
address tokenA,
25
address tokenB,
26
uint amountADesired,
27
uint amountBDesired,
28
uint amountAMin,
29
uint amountBMin
30
) internal virtual returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
31
// create the pair if it doesn't exist yet
32
if (IUniswapV2Factory(factory).getPair(tokenA, tokenB) == address(0)) {
33
IUniswapV2Factory(factory).createPair(tokenA, tokenB);
34
}
35
(uint reserveA, uint reserveB) = UniswapV2Library.getReserves(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
36
if (reserveA == 0 && reserveB == 0) {
37
(amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBDesired);
38
} else {
39
uint amountBOptimal = UniswapV2Library.quote(amountADesired, reserveA, reserveB);
40
if (amountBOptimal <= amountBDesired) {
41
require(amountBOptimal >= amountBMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_B_AMOUNT');
42
(amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBOptimal);
43
} else {
44
uint amountAOptimal = UniswapV2Library.quote(amountBDesired, reserveB, reserveA);
45
assert(amountAOptimal <= amountADesired);
46
require(amountAOptimal >= amountAMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_A_AMOUNT');
47
(amountA, amountB) = (amountAOptimal, amountBDesired);
48
}
49
}
50
}
51
function addLiquidity(
52
address tokenA,
53
address tokenB,
54
uint amountADesired,
55
uint amountBDesired,
56
uint amountAMin,
57
uint amountBMin,
58
address to,
59
uint deadline
60
) external virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountA, uint amountB, uint liquidity) {
61
(amountA, amountB) = _addLiquidity(tokenA, tokenB, amountADesired, amountBDesired, amountAMin, amountBMin);
62
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
63
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(tokenA, msg.sender, pair, amountA);
64
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(tokenB, msg.sender, pair, amountB);
65
liquidity = IUniswapV2Pair(pair).mint(to);
66
}
67
68
// **** REMOVE LIQUIDITY ****
69
function removeLiquidity(
70
address tokenA,
71
address tokenB,
72
uint liquidity,
73
uint amountAMin,
74
uint amountBMin,
75
address to,
76
uint deadline
77
) public virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
78
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
79
IUniswapV2Pair(pair).transferFrom(msg.sender, pair, liquidity); // send liquidity to pair
80
(uint amount0, uint amount1) = IUniswapV2Pair(pair).burn(to);
81
(address token0,) = UniswapV2Library.sortTokens(tokenA, tokenB);
82
(amountA, amountB) = tokenA == token0 ? (amount0, amount1) : (amount1, amount0);
83
require(amountA >= amountAMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_A_AMOUNT');
84
require(amountB >= amountBMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_B_AMOUNT');
85
}
86
function removeLiquidityWithPermit(
87
address tokenA,
88
address tokenB,
89
uint liquidity,
90
uint amountAMin,
91
uint amountBMin,
92
address to,
93
uint deadline,
94
bool approveMax, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s
95
) external virtual override returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
96
address pair = UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
97
uint value = approveMax ? uint(-1) : liquidity;
98
IUniswapV2Pair(pair).permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s);
99
(amountA, amountB) = removeLiquidity(tokenA, tokenB, liquidity, amountAMin, amountBMin, to, deadline);
100
}
101
102
// **** SWAP ****
103
// requires the initial amount to have already been sent to the first pair
104
function _swap(uint[] memory amounts, address[] memory path, address _to) internal virtual {
105
for (uint i; i < path.length - 1; i++) {
106
(address input, address output) = (path[i], path[i + 1]);
107
(address token0,) = UniswapV2Library.sortTokens(input, output);
108
uint amountOut = amounts[i + 1];
109
(uint amount0Out, uint amount1Out) = input == token0 ? (uint(0), amountOut) : (amountOut, uint(0));
110
address to = i < path.length - 2 ? UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, output, path[i + 2]) : _to;
111
IUniswapV2Pair(UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, input, output)).swap(
112
amount0Out, amount1Out, to, new bytes(0)
113
);
114
}
115
}
116
function swapExactTokensForTokens(
117
uint amountIn,
118
uint amountOutMin,
119
address[] calldata path,
120
address to,
121
uint deadline
122
) external virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint[] memory amounts) {
123
amounts = UniswapV2Library.getAmountsOut(factory, amountIn, path);
124
require(amounts[amounts.length - 1] >= amountOutMin, 'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_OUTPUT_AMOUNT');
125
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(
126
path[0], msg.sender, UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, path[0], path[1]), amounts[0]
127
);
128
_swap(amounts, path, to);
129
}
130
function swapTokensForExactTokens(
131
uint amountOut,
132
uint amountInMax,
133
address[] calldata path,
134
address to,
135
uint deadline
136
) external virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint[] memory amounts) {
137
amounts = UniswapV2Library.getAmountsIn(factory, amountOut, path);
138
require(amounts[0] <= amountInMax, 'UniswapV2Router: EXCESSIVE_INPUT_AMOUNT');
139
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(
140
path[0], msg.sender, UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, path[0], path[1]), amounts[0]
141
);
142
_swap(amounts, path, to);
143
}
144
145
// **** SWAP (supporting fee-on-transfer tokens) ****
146
// requires the initial amount to have already been sent to the first pair
147
function _swapSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(address[] memory path, address _to) internal virtual {
148
for (uint i; i < path.length - 1; i++) {
149
(address input, address output) = (path[i], path[i + 1]);
150
(address token0,) = UniswapV2Library.sortTokens(input, output);
151
IUniswapV2Pair pair = IUniswapV2Pair(UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, input, output));
152
uint amountInput;
153
uint amountOutput;
154
{ // scope to avoid stack too deep errors
155
(uint reserve0, uint reserve1,) = pair.getReserves();
156
(uint reserveInput, uint reserveOutput) = input == token0 ? (reserve0, reserve1) : (reserve1, reserve0);
157
amountInput = IERC20Uniswap(input).balanceOf(address(pair)).sub(reserveInput);
158
amountOutput = UniswapV2Library.getAmountOut(amountInput, reserveInput, reserveOutput);
159
}
160
(uint amount0Out, uint amount1Out) = input == token0 ? (uint(0), amountOutput) : (amountOutput, uint(0));
161
address to = i < path.length - 2 ? UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, output, path[i + 2]) : _to;
162
pair.swap(amount0Out, amount1Out, to, new bytes(0));
163
}
164
}
165
function swapExactTokensForTokensSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
166
uint amountIn,
167
uint amountOutMin,
168
address[] calldata path,
169
address to,
170
uint deadline
171
) external virtual override ensure(deadline) {
172
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(
173
path[0], msg.sender, UniswapV2Library.pairFor(factory, path[0], path[1]), amountIn
174
);
175
uint balanceBefore = IERC20Uniswap(path[path.length - 1]).balanceOf(to);
176
_swapSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(path, to);
177
require(
178
IERC20Uniswap(path[path.length - 1]).balanceOf(to).sub(balanceBefore) >= amountOutMin,
179
'UniswapV2Router: INSUFFICIENT_OUTPUT_AMOUNT'
180
);
181
}
182
183
// **** LIBRARY FUNCTIONS ****
184
function quote(uint amountA, uint reserveA, uint reserveB) public pure virtual override returns (uint amountB) {
185
return UniswapV2Library.quote(amountA, reserveA, reserveB);
186
}
187
188
function getAmountOut(uint amountIn, uint reserveIn, uint reserveOut)
189
public
190
pure
191
virtual
192
override
193
returns (uint amountOut)
194
{
195
return UniswapV2Library.getAmountOut(amountIn, reserveIn, reserveOut);
196
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
15
2113
278
420
1415
139
Comments to Code 420/1415 = 30%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
TypeScript
8
1606
241
38
1327
5
Tests to Code 1327/1415 = 94%
Last modified 25d ago