P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
BabySwap Process Quality Review
Score: 50%

Overview

This is a BabySwap Process Quality Review completed on 13 Oct 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 50%, a FAIL. 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 blockchains used by this protocol. This report covers all of the blockchains upon which the protocol is deployed.
Chain: Binance Smart Chain
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 https://docs.babyswap.finance/developers/smart-contracts, 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 far more than 10 transactions a day on contract BabySwap: Router, 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: 0%
At just 19 commits and 1 branch, it's clear BabySwap's development history is in its infancy.
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

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.

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

Answer: No
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: No
There are no basic software functions identified in BabySwap's documentation.

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

Answer: 0%
As the software functions are only identified, the documentation goes no distance in covering the deployed contracts. A detailed breakdown of what each line of contract code is necessary.
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 be improved by adding content to the software functions 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.

9) 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.

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

Answer: 0%
As there are no software functions documented in the BabySwap documentation, we cannot evaluate their traceability as to the functions' implementations in the protocol's source code.
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 92% 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 code coverage testing was found, but there's clearly a robust degree of testing that has been done.
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 test report is evident.
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%
BabySwap has not undergone formal verification.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%
No evidence of BabySwap's deployment to a testnet was found.

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%
Multiple audits have taken place on BabySwap, and each one was conducted then resolved before the relevant contract was deployed.
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%
No bug bounty information was found.
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: 0%
No admin control information was found.
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: 0%
There was no information.
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: 0%
No information was found.
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%
No pause control information was found.
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
contract BabyRouter is IBabyRouter02, Ownable {
2
using SafeMath for uint;
3
4
address public immutable override factory;
5
address public immutable override WETH;
6
address public swapMining;
7
8
modifier ensure(uint deadline) {
9
require(deadline >= block.timestamp, 'BabyRouter: EXPIRED');
10
_;
11
}
12
13
function setSwapMining(address _swapMininng) public onlyOwner {
14
swapMining = _swapMininng;
15
}
16
17
constructor(address _factory, address _WETH) {
18
factory = _factory;
19
WETH = _WETH;
20
}
21
22
receive() external payable {
23
assert(msg.sender == WETH); // only accept ETH via fallback from the WETH contract
24
}
25
26
// **** ADD LIQUIDITY ****
27
function _addLiquidity(
28
address tokenA,
29
address tokenB,
30
uint amountADesired,
31
uint amountBDesired,
32
uint amountAMin,
33
uint amountBMin
34
) internal virtual returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
35
// create the pair if it doesn't exist yet
36
if (IBabyFactory(factory).getPair(tokenA, tokenB) == address(0)) {
37
IBabyFactory(factory).createPair(tokenA, tokenB);
38
}
39
(uint reserveA, uint reserveB) = BabyLibrary.getReserves(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
40
if (reserveA == 0 && reserveB == 0) {
41
(amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBDesired);
42
} else {
43
uint amountBOptimal = BabyLibrary.quote(amountADesired, reserveA, reserveB);
44
if (amountBOptimal <= amountBDesired) {
45
require(amountBOptimal >= amountBMin, 'BabyRouter: INSUFFICIENT_B_AMOUNT');
46
(amountA, amountB) = (amountADesired, amountBOptimal);
47
} else {
48
uint amountAOptimal = BabyLibrary.quote(amountBDesired, reserveB, reserveA);
49
assert(amountAOptimal <= amountADesired);
50
require(amountAOptimal >= amountAMin, 'BabyRouter: INSUFFICIENT_A_AMOUNT');
51
(amountA, amountB) = (amountAOptimal, amountBDesired);
52
}
53
}
54
}
55
function addLiquidity(
56
address tokenA,
57
address tokenB,
58
uint amountADesired,
59
uint amountBDesired,
60
uint amountAMin,
61
uint amountBMin,
62
address to,
63
uint deadline
64
) external virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountA, uint amountB, uint liquidity) {
65
(amountA, amountB) = _addLiquidity(tokenA, tokenB, amountADesired, amountBDesired, amountAMin, amountBMin);
66
address pair = BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
67
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(tokenA, msg.sender, pair, amountA);
68
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(tokenB, msg.sender, pair, amountB);
69
liquidity = IBabyPair(pair).mint(to);
70
}
71
function addLiquidityETH(
72
address token,
73
uint amountTokenDesired,
74
uint amountTokenMin,
75
uint amountETHMin,
76
address to,
77
uint deadline
78
) external virtual override payable ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountToken, uint amountETH, uint liquidity) {
79
(amountToken, amountETH) = _addLiquidity(
80
token,
81
WETH,
82
amountTokenDesired,
83
msg.value,
84
amountTokenMin,
85
amountETHMin
86
);
87
address pair = BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, token, WETH);
88
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(token, msg.sender, pair, amountToken);
89
IWETH(WETH).deposit{value: amountETH}();
90
assert(IWETH(WETH).transfer(pair, amountETH));
91
liquidity = IBabyPair(pair).mint(to);
92
// refund dust eth, if any
93
if (msg.value > amountETH) TransferHelper.safeTransferETH(msg.sender, msg.value - amountETH);
94
}
95
96
// **** REMOVE LIQUIDITY ****
97
function removeLiquidity(
98
address tokenA,
99
address tokenB,
100
uint liquidity,
101
uint amountAMin,
102
uint amountBMin,
103
address to,
104
uint deadline
105
) public virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
106
address pair = BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
107
console.log("tet123");
108
IBabyPair(pair).transferFrom(msg.sender, pair, liquidity); // send liquidity to pair
109
console.log("tet1234");
110
(uint amount0, uint amount1) = IBabyPair(pair).burn(to);
111
(address token0,) = BabyLibrary.sortTokens(tokenA, tokenB);
112
(amountA, amountB) = tokenA == token0 ? (amount0, amount1) : (amount1, amount0);
113
require(amountA >= amountAMin, 'BabyRouter: INSUFFICIENT_A_AMOUNT');
114
require(amountB >= amountBMin, 'BabyRouter: INSUFFICIENT_B_AMOUNT');
115
}
116
function removeLiquidityETH(
117
address token,
118
uint liquidity,
119
uint amountTokenMin,
120
uint amountETHMin,
121
address to,
122
uint deadline
123
) public virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountToken, uint amountETH) {
124
(amountToken, amountETH) = removeLiquidity(
125
token,
126
WETH,
127
liquidity,
128
amountTokenMin,
129
amountETHMin,
130
address(this),
131
deadline
132
);
133
TransferHelper.safeTransfer(token, to, amountToken);
134
IWETH(WETH).withdraw(amountETH);
135
TransferHelper.safeTransferETH(to, amountETH);
136
}
137
function removeLiquidityWithPermit(
138
address tokenA,
139
address tokenB,
140
uint liquidity,
141
uint amountAMin,
142
uint amountBMin,
143
address to,
144
uint deadline,
145
bool approveMax, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s
146
) external virtual override returns (uint amountA, uint amountB) {
147
address pair = BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, tokenA, tokenB);
148
uint value = approveMax ? uint(-1) : liquidity;
149
IBabyPair(pair).permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s);
150
(amountA, amountB) = removeLiquidity(tokenA, tokenB, liquidity, amountAMin, amountBMin, to, deadline);
151
}
152
function removeLiquidityETHWithPermit(
153
address token,
154
uint liquidity,
155
uint amountTokenMin,
156
uint amountETHMin,
157
address to,
158
uint deadline,
159
bool approveMax, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s
160
) external virtual override returns (uint amountToken, uint amountETH) {
161
address pair = BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, token, WETH);
162
uint value = approveMax ? uint(-1) : liquidity;
163
IBabyPair(pair).permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s);
164
(amountToken, amountETH) = removeLiquidityETH(token, liquidity, amountTokenMin, amountETHMin, to, deadline);
165
}
166
167
// **** REMOVE LIQUIDITY (supporting fee-on-transfer tokens) ****
168
function removeLiquidityETHSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
169
address token,
170
uint liquidity,
171
uint amountTokenMin,
172
uint amountETHMin,
173
address to,
174
uint deadline
175
) public virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint amountETH) {
176
(, amountETH) = removeLiquidity(
177
token,
178
WETH,
179
liquidity,
180
amountTokenMin,
181
amountETHMin,
182
address(this),
183
deadline
184
);
185
TransferHelper.safeTransfer(token, to, IERC20(token).balanceOf(address(this)));
186
IWETH(WETH).withdraw(amountETH);
187
TransferHelper.safeTransferETH(to, amountETH);
188
}
189
function removeLiquidityETHWithPermitSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
190
address token,
191
uint liquidity,
192
uint amountTokenMin,
193
uint amountETHMin,
194
address to,
195
uint deadline,
196
bool approveMax, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s
197
) external virtual override returns (uint amountETH) {
198
address pair = BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, token, WETH);
199
uint value = approveMax ? uint(-1) : liquidity;
200
IBabyPair(pair).permit(msg.sender, address(this), value, deadline, v, r, s);
201
amountETH = removeLiquidityETHSupportingFeeOnTransferTokens(
202
token, liquidity, amountTokenMin, amountETHMin, to, deadline
203
);
204
}
205
206
/ **** SWAP ****
207
/ requires the initial amount to have already been sent to the first pair
208
function _swap(uint[] memory amounts, address[] memory path, address _to) internal virtual {
209
for (uint i; i < path.length - 1; i++) {
210
(address input, address output) = (path[i], path[i + 1]);
211
(address token0,) = BabyLibrary.sortTokens(input, output);
212
uint amountOut = amounts[i + 1];
213
if (swapMining != address(0)) {
214
ISwapMining(swapMining).swap(msg.sender, input, output, amountOut);
215
}
216
(uint amount0Out, uint amount1Out) = input == token0 ? (uint(0), amountOut) : (amountOut, uint(0));
217
address to = i < path.length - 2 ? BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, output, path[i + 2]) : _to;
218
IBabyPair(BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, input, output)).swap(
219
amount0Out, amount1Out, to, new bytes(0)
220
);
221
}
222
}
223
function swapExactTokensForTokens(
224
uint amountIn,
225
uint amountOutMin,
226
address[] calldata path,
227
address to,
228
uint deadline
229
) external virtual override ensure(deadline) returns (uint[] memory amounts) {
230
amounts = BabyLibrary.getAmountsOut(factory, amountIn, path);
231
require(amounts[amounts.length - 1] >= amountOutMin, 'BabyRouter: INSUFFICIENT_OUTPUT_AMOUNT');
232
TransferHelper.safeTransferFrom(
233
path[0], msg.sender, BabyLibrary.pairFor(factory, path[0], path[1]), amounts[0]
234
);
235
_swap(amounts, path, to);
236
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
23
6058
758
1031
4269
495
Comments to Code 1031/4269 = 24%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JSON
5
3901
0
0
3901
0
Python
1
41
4
29
8
3
Total
6
3942
4
29
3909
3
Tests to Code 3909/4269 = 92%
Last modified 5d ago