Finished Reviews

Vesper Finance Process Quality Review

Score: 71%

This is a Process Quality Review of Vesper Finance completed on 4/1/2021. 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 71%, a close 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://docs.vesper.finance/vesper-grow-pools/vesper-grow/audits#vesper-pool-contracts as indicated in the Appendix.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%

Activity is 327 transactions a day on contract VVSP.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/vesperfi

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: 0%

The Vesper GitHub only has 4 commits and 1 branch.

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

The team's information can be found 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

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

Answer: No

There is no apparent software function documentation of Vesper.

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: 0%

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: 24%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 24% 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: 0%

There is no apparent software function documentation of Vesper.

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: 80%

With a TtC of 100% there is clearly a robust test suite present.

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: 50%

There is no coverage report available, but there is clearly a robust test suite availible.

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

Location: https://github.com/vesperfi/vesper-pools

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

Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evident 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%

There is no evident formal verification that has been done.

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

With no published Kovan or Ropsten TestNet addresses, it is impossible to verify if this protocol has been stress-tested.

Audits

Answer: 100%

CoinSpect has preformed 5 audits on Vesper Finance.

Certik has preformed an audit on Vesper Finance.

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: MIT
pragma solidity 0.6.12;
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
import "../Pausable.sol";
import "../interfaces/aave/IAave.sol";
import "../interfaces/maker/IMakerDAO.sol";
import "../interfaces/vesper/ICollateralManager.sol";
import "../interfaces/vesper/IController.sol";
import "../interfaces/vesper/IStrategy.sol";
import "../interfaces/vesper/IVesperPool.sol";
import "../interfaces/uniswap/IUniswapV2Router02.sol";
/// @dev This strategy will deposit collateral token in Maker and borrow DAI
/// and deposit borrowed DAI in Aave to earn interest on it.
abstract contract AaveMakerStrategy is IStrategy, Pausable {
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
using SafeMath for uint256;
address public constant WETH = 0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2;
address public constant DAI = 0x6B175474E89094C44Da98b954EedeAC495271d0F;
address public constant AAVE_ADDRESSES_PROVIDER = 0x24a42fD28C976A61Df5D00D0599C34c4f90748c8;
ICollateralManager public immutable cm;
IController public immutable controller;
IERC20 public immutable collateralToken;
bytes32 public immutable collateralType;
uint256 public immutable vaultNum;
address public immutable override pool;
uint256 public lastRebalanceBlock;
uint256 public highWater;
uint256 public lowWater;
uint256 internal constant MAX_UINT_VALUE = uint256(-1);
uint256 private constant WAT = 10**16;
AToken private immutable aToken;
mapping(address => bool) private reservedToken;
constructor(
address _controller,
address _pool,
address _collateralToken,
address _cm,
bytes32 _collateralType
) public {
require(_controller != address(0), "Controller address is zero");
require(IController(_controller).isPool(_pool), "Not a valid pool");
controller = IController(_controller);
collateralType = _collateralType;
vaultNum = _createVault(_collateralType, _cm);
pool = _pool;
collateralToken = IERC20(_collateralToken);
cm = ICollateralManager(_cm);
address aTokenAddress = _getToken();
aToken = AToken(aTokenAddress);
reservedToken[_collateralToken] = true;
reservedToken[aTokenAddress] = true;
reservedToken[DAI] = true;
}
modifier live() {
require(!paused || _msgSender() == address(controller), "Contract has paused");
_;
}
modifier onlyAuthorized() {
require(
_msgSender() == address(controller) || _msgSender() == pool,
"Caller is not authorized"
);
_;
}
modifier onlyController() {
require(_msgSender() == address(controller), "Caller is not the controller");
_;
}
modifier onlyPool() {
require(_msgSender() == pool, "Caller is not pool");
_;
}
function pause() external override onlyController {
_pause();
}
function unpause() external override onlyController {
_unpause();
}
/// @dev Approve Dai and collateralToken to collateral manager
function approveToken() external onlyController {
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(cm), MAX_UINT_VALUE);
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(cm), MAX_UINT_VALUE);
}
/// @dev Reset Dai and collateralToken approval of collateral manager
function resetApproval() external onlyController {
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(cm), 0);
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(cm), 0);
}
/**
* @dev Deposit collateral token into Maker vault.
* @param _amount Amount of collateral token
*/
function deposit(uint256 _amount) external override onlyPool {
_deposit(_amount);
}
/**
* @dev Called during withdrawal process.
* Withdraw is not allowed if pool in underwater.
* If pool is underwater, calling resurface() will bring pool above water.
* It will impact share price in pool and that's why it has to be called before withdraw.
*/
function beforeWithdraw() external override onlyPool {
if (isUnderwater()) {
_resurface();
}
}
/**
* @dev Withdraw collateral token from Maker and in order to do that strategy
* has to withdraw Dai from Aave and payback Dai in Maker.
* @param _amount Amount of collateral token to be withdrawn
*/
function withdraw(uint256 _amount) external override onlyAuthorized {
_withdraw(_amount);
}
/**
* @dev Rebalance earning and withdraw all collateral.
* Controller only function, called when migrating strategy.
*/
function withdrawAllWithRebalance() external onlyController {
_rebalanceEarned();
_withdrawAll();
}
/**
* @dev Withdraw all collateral. No rebalance earning.
* Controller only function, called when migrating strategy.
*/
function withdrawAll() external override onlyController {
_withdrawAll();
}
/**
* @dev Wrapper function for rebalanceEarned and rebalanceCollateral
* Anyone can call it except when paused.
*/
function rebalance() external override live {
_rebalanceEarned();
_rebalanceCollateral();
}
/**
* @dev Rebalance collateral and debt in Maker.
* Based on defined risk parameter either borrow more DAI from Maker or
* payback some DAI in Maker. It will try to mitigate risk of liquidation.
* Anyone can call it except when paused.
*/
function rebalanceCollateral() external live {
_rebalanceCollateral();
}
/**
* @dev Convert earned DAI from Aave to collateral token
* Also calculate interest fee on earning from Aave and transfer fee to fee collector.
* Anyone can call it except when paused.
*/
function rebalanceEarned() external live {
_rebalanceEarned();
}
/**
* @dev If pool is underwater this function will resolve underwater condition.
* If Debt in Maker is greater than aDAI balance in Aave then pool in underwater.
* Lowering DAI debt in Maker will resolve underwater condtion.
* Resolve: Calculate required collateral token to lower DAI debt. Withdraw required
* collateral token from pool and/or Maker and convert those to DAI via Uniswap.
* Finally payback debt in Maker using DAI.
*/
function resurface() external live {
_resurface();
}
/// @dev sweep given ERC20 token to vesper pool
function sweepErc20(address _fromToken) external {
uint256 amount = IERC20(_fromToken).balanceOf(address(this));
IERC20(_fromToken).safeTransfer(pool, amount);
}
function updateBalancingFactor(uint256 _highWater, uint256 _lowWater) external onlyController {
require(_lowWater != 0, "Value is zero");
require(_highWater > _lowWater, "highWater <= lowWater");
highWater = _highWater.mul(WAT);
lowWater = _lowWater.mul(WAT);
}
/**
* @notice Returns interest earned since last rebalance.
* @dev Make sure to return value in collateral token and in order to do that
* we are using Uniswap to get collateral amount for earned DAI.
*/
function interestEarned() external view returns (uint256) {
uint256 aDaiBalance = aToken.balanceOf(pool);
uint256 debt = cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum);
if (aDaiBalance > debt) {
uint256 daiEarned = aDaiBalance.sub(debt);
IUniswapV2Router02 uniswapRouter = IUniswapV2Router02(controller.uniswapRouter());
address[] memory path = _getPath(DAI, address(collateralToken));
return uniswapRouter.getAmountsOut(daiEarned, path)[path.length - 1];
}
return 0;
}
/// @dev Returns true if strategy can be upgraded.
function isUpgradable() external view override returns (bool) {
return totalLocked() == 0;
}
function isReservedToken(address _token) external view override returns (bool) {
return reservedToken[_token];
}
/// @dev Address of Aave DAI token
function token() external view override returns (address) {
return address(aToken);
}
/// @dev Check if pool is underwater i.e. debt is greater than aDai in Aave
function isUnderwater() public view returns (bool) {
return cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum) > aToken.balanceOf(pool);
}
/// @dev Returns total collateral locked in Maker vault
function totalLocked() public view override returns (uint256) {
return convertFrom18(cm.getVaultBalance(vaultNum));
}
/// @dev Convert from 18 decimals to token defined decimals. Default no conversion.
function convertFrom18(uint256 _amount) public pure virtual returns (uint256) {
return _amount;
}
/// @dev Create new Maker vault
function _createVault(bytes32 _collateralType, address _cm) internal returns (uint256 vaultId) {
address mcdManager = ICollateralManager(_cm).mcdManager();
ManagerLike manager = ManagerLike(mcdManager);
vaultId = manager.open(_collateralType, address(this));
manager.cdpAllow(vaultId, address(this), 1);
//hope and cpdAllow on vat for collateralManager's address
VatLike(manager.vat()).hope(_cm);
manager.cdpAllow(vaultId, _cm, 1);
//Register vault with collateral Manager
ICollateralManager(_cm).registerVault(vaultId, _collateralType);
}
function _deposit(uint256 _amount) internal {
collateralToken.safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), _amount);
cm.depositCollateral(vaultNum, _amount);
}
function _depositDaiToAave(uint256 _amount) internal {
AaveAddressesProvider aaveProvider = AaveAddressesProvider(AAVE_ADDRESSES_PROVIDER);
address aavePool = aaveProvider.getLendingPool();
address aavePoolCore = aaveProvider.getLendingPoolCore();
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(aavePoolCore, 0);
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(aavePoolCore, _amount);
AavePool(aavePool).deposit(DAI, _amount, controller.aaveReferralCode());
IERC20(address(aToken)).safeTransfer(pool, _amount);
}
/**
* @dev Deposit fee into Vesper pool to get Vesper pool shares.
* Transfer fee, Vesper pool shares, to fee collector.
*/
function _handleFee(uint256 fee) internal {
if (fee != 0) {
collateralToken.safeApprove(pool, 0);
collateralToken.safeApprove(pool, fee);
IVesperPool(pool).deposit(fee);
uint256 feeInShare = IERC20(pool).balanceOf(address(this));
IERC20(pool).safeTransfer(controller.feeCollector(pool), feeInShare);
}
}
function _moveDaiToMaker(uint256 _amount) internal {
if (_amount != 0) {
_withdrawDaiFromAave(_amount);
cm.payback(vaultNum, _amount);
}
}
function _moveDaiFromMaker(uint256 _amount) internal {
cm.borrow(vaultNum, _amount);
// In edge case, we might be able to borrow less, so better check how much DAI we borrowed
_amount = IERC20(DAI).balanceOf(address(this));
_depositDaiToAave(_amount);
}
function _rebalanceCollateral() internal {
_deposit(collateralToken.balanceOf(pool));
(
uint256 collateralLocked,
uint256 debt,
uint256 collateralUsdRate,
uint256 collateralRatio,
uint256 minimumDebt
) = cm.getVaultInfo(vaultNum);
uint256 maxDebt = collateralLocked.mul(collateralUsdRate).div(highWater);
if (maxDebt < minimumDebt) {
// Dusting scenario. Payback all DAI
_moveDaiToMaker(debt);
} else {
if (collateralRatio > highWater) {
require(!isUnderwater(), "Pool is underwater");
_moveDaiFromMaker(maxDebt.sub(debt));
} else if (collateralRatio < lowWater) {
// Redeem DAI from Aave and deposit in maker
_moveDaiToMaker(debt.sub(maxDebt));
}
}
}
function _rebalanceEarned() internal {
require(
(block.number - lastRebalanceBlock) >= controller.rebalanceFriction(pool),
"Can not rebalance"
);
lastRebalanceBlock = block.number;
uint256 debt = cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum);
_withdrawExcessDaiFromAave(debt);
uint256 balance = IERC20(DAI).balanceOf(address(this));
if (balance != 0) {
IUniswapV2Router02 uniswapRouter = IUniswapV2Router02(controller.uniswapRouter());
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), 0);
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), balance);
address[] memory path = _getPath(DAI, address(collateralToken));
// Swap and get collateralToken here.
// It is possible that amount out resolves to 0
// Which will cause the swap to fail
try uniswapRouter.getAmountsOut(balance, path) returns (uint256[] memory amounts) {
if (amounts[path.length - 1] != 0) {
uniswapRouter.swapExactTokensForTokens(
balance,
1,
path,
address(this),
now + 30
);
uint256 collateralBalance = collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this));
uint256 fee = collateralBalance.mul(controller.interestFee(pool)).div(1e18);
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, collateralBalance.sub(fee));
_handleFee(fee);
}
} catch {}
}
}
function _resurface() internal {
uint256 earnBalance = aToken.balanceOf(pool);
uint256 debt = cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum);
require(debt > earnBalance, "Pool is above water");
uint256 shortAmount = debt.sub(earnBalance);
IUniswapV2Router02 uniswapRouter = IUniswapV2Router02(controller.uniswapRouter());
address[] memory path = _getPath(address(collateralToken), DAI);
uint256 tokenNeeded = uniswapRouter.getAmountsIn(shortAmount, path)[0];
uint256 balance = collateralToken.balanceOf(pool);
// If pool has more balance than tokenNeeded, get what needed from pool
// else get pool balance from pool and remaining from Maker vault
if (balance >= tokenNeeded) {
collateralToken.safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), tokenNeeded);
} else {
cm.withdrawCollateral(vaultNum, tokenNeeded.sub(balance));
collateralToken.safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), balance);
}
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), 0);
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), tokenNeeded);
uniswapRouter.swapExactTokensForTokens(tokenNeeded, 1, path, address(this), now + 30);
uint256 daiBalance = IERC20(DAI).balanceOf(address(this));
cm.payback(vaultNum, daiBalance);
// If Uniswap operation leave any collateral dust then send it to pool
uint256 _collateralbalance = collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this));
if (_collateralbalance != 0) {
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, _collateralbalance);
}
}
function _withdrawDaiFromAave(uint256 _amount) internal {
IERC20(address(aToken)).safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), _amount);
aToken.redeem(_amount);
}
function _withdrawExcessDaiFromAave(uint256 _base) internal {
uint256 balance = aToken.balanceOf(pool);
if (balance > _base) {
uint256 amount = balance.sub(_base);
IERC20(address(aToken)).safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), amount);
aToken.redeem(amount);
}
}
function _withdraw(uint256 _amount) internal {
(
uint256 collateralLocked,
uint256 debt,
uint256 collateralUsdRate,
uint256 collateralRatio,
uint256 minimumDebt
) = cm.whatWouldWithdrawDo(vaultNum, _amount);
if (debt != 0 && collateralRatio < lowWater) {
// If this withdraw results in Low Water scenario.
uint256 maxDebt = collateralLocked.mul(collateralUsdRate).div(highWater);
if (maxDebt < minimumDebt) {
// This is Dusting scenario
_moveDaiToMaker(debt);
} else if (maxDebt < debt) {
_moveDaiToMaker(debt.sub(maxDebt));
}
}
cm.withdrawCollateral(vaultNum, _amount);
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this)));
}
function _withdrawAll() internal {
_moveDaiToMaker(cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum));
require(cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum) == 0, "Debt should be 0");
cm.withdrawCollateral(vaultNum, totalLocked());
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this)));
}
/// @dev Get aToken address
function _getToken() internal view returns (address) {
AaveAddressesProvider aaveProvider = AaveAddressesProvider(AAVE_ADDRESSES_PROVIDER);
address aavePoolCore = aaveProvider.getLendingPoolCore();
return AavePoolCore(aavePoolCore).getReserveATokenAddress(DAI);
}
function _getPath(address _from, address _to) internal pure returns (address[] memory) {
address[] memory path;
if (_from == WETH || _to == WETH) {
path = new address[](2);
path[0] = _from;
path[1] = _to;
} else {
path = new address[](3);
path[0] = _from;
path[1] = WETH;
path[2] = _to;
}
return path;
}
}

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

Solidity

61

6937

1015

1160

4762

515

Comments to Code 1160/4762 = 24%

Javascript Tests

Language

Files

Lines

Blanks

Comments

Code

Complexity

JavaScript

39

5834

795

239

4800

91

Tests to Code 4800/4762 = 100%