P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
DODO Exchange V2 Process Quality Review
Score: 62%

Overview

This is a DODO Exchange Process Quality Review completed on 05/10/2021. 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 62%, 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: Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, Polygon, Arbitrum & HECO
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://dodoex.github.io/docs/docs/deployedInfo, 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 50 transactions a day on contract DODO Approve Proxy, 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%
At 731 commits and 12 branches, it's clear this development history won't be going the way of the Dodo anytime soon.
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
Note: finding other DODO team members has proven exceptionally difficult.
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 docs contain some basic software functions.

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

Answer: 50%
Some of the major contracts, as well as API, are covered. However, there are a decent number of contracts that are not covered by documentation.
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: 0%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 18% 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: 40%
Given that not all contracts deployed are covered by the documentation, it is impossible to determine traceability or even association between documents and the DODO 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 113% 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 test was found, but there is evidence of fairly complete testing.
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 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%
The exchange has had "formal verification testing methods" undertaken on it by Beosin, one of the "audits". It is unclear what this means as there is insufficient elaboration.
A formal verification is a distinct document undertaken throughout the development process. For a more clear example as to what a Formal Verification should look like, see Compound Finance's formal verification.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
DODO has been deployed in full on the Rinkeby 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: 70%
Multiple audits have taken place on Dodo, but not before the code was deployed. Changes were implemented.
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: 70%
DODO's Bug Bounty program rewards participating users with up to 200k for the most critical of finds.
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%
Access control documentation could not be found. Although there is some access control information for LPs and market traders on DODO, there is no information how much control the admins have over the protocol.
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: 10%
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 5% -- no contracts are labelled with regards to upgradeability. The Admin DAO is expected to be in full control of the exchange when it is created. b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 5% -- a DAO is on DODO's roadmap, but there is no mention on how this is progressing. This implies full ownership on behalf of the developers, but this is unconfirmed. c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 0% -- no capabilities are described.
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%
There is no access control information that relates to users' investments' safety in the DODO documentation.
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 was documented.
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
address constant _ETH_ADDRESS_ = 0xEeeeeEeeeEeEeeEeEeEeeEEEeeeeEeeeeeeeEEeE;
2
address public immutable _WETH_;
3
address public immutable _DODO_APPROVE_PROXY_;
4
address public immutable _DODO_SELL_HELPER_;
5
address public immutable _DVM_FACTORY_;
6
address public immutable _DPP_FACTORY_;
7
mapping (address => bool) public isWhiteListed;
8
9
// ============ Events ============
10
11
event OrderHistory(
12
address fromToken,
13
address toToken,
14
address sender,
15
uint256 fromAmount,
16
uint256 returnAmount
17
);
18
19
// ============ Modifiers ============
20
21
modifier judgeExpired(uint256 deadLine) {
22
require(deadLine >= block.timestamp, "DODOV2Proxy02: EXPIRED");
23
_;
24
}
25
26
fallback() external payable {}
27
28
receive() external payable {}
29
30
constructor(
31
address dvmFactory,
32
address dppFactory,
33
address payable weth,
34
address dodoApproveProxy,
35
address dodoSellHelper
36
) public {
37
_DVM_FACTORY_ = dvmFactory;
38
_DPP_FACTORY_ = dppFactory;
39
_WETH_ = weth;
40
_DODO_APPROVE_PROXY_ = dodoApproveProxy;
41
_DODO_SELL_HELPER_ = dodoSellHelper;
42
}
43
44
function addWhiteList (address contractAddr) public onlyOwner {
45
isWhiteListed[contractAddr] = true;
46
}
47
48
function removeWhiteList (address contractAddr) public onlyOwner {
49
isWhiteListed[contractAddr] = false;
50
}
51
52
// ============ DVM Functions (create & add liquidity) ============
53
54
function createDODOVendingMachine(
55
address baseToken,
56
address quoteToken,
57
uint256 baseInAmount,
58
uint256 quoteInAmount,
59
uint256 lpFeeRate,
60
uint256 i,
61
uint256 k,
62
bool isOpenTWAP,
63
uint256 deadLine
64
)
65
external
66
override
67
payable
68
preventReentrant
69
judgeExpired(deadLine)
70
returns (address newVendingMachine, uint256 shares)
71
{
72
{
73
address _baseToken = baseToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_ ? _WETH_ : baseToken;
74
address _quoteToken = quoteToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_ ? _WETH_ : quoteToken;
75
newVendingMachine = IDODOV2(_DVM_FACTORY_).createDODOVendingMachine(
76
_baseToken,
77
_quoteToken,
78
lpFeeRate,
79
i,
80
k,
81
isOpenTWAP
82
);
83
}
84
85
{
86
address _baseToken = baseToken;
87
address _quoteToken = quoteToken;
88
_deposit(
89
msg.sender,
90
newVendingMachine,
91
_baseToken,
92
baseInAmount,
93
_baseToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_
94
);
95
_deposit(
96
msg.sender,
97
newVendingMachine,
98
_quoteToken,
99
quoteInAmount,
100
_quoteToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_
101
);
102
}
103
104
(shares, , ) = IDODOV2(newVendingMachine).buyShares(msg.sender);
105
}
106
107
function addDVMLiquidity(
108
address dvmAddress,
109
uint256 baseInAmount,
110
uint256 quoteInAmount,
111
uint256 baseMinAmount,
112
uint256 quoteMinAmount,
113
uint8 flag, // 0 - ERC20, 1 - baseInETH, 2 - quoteInETH
114
uint256 deadLine
115
)
116
external
117
override
118
payable
119
preventReentrant
120
judgeExpired(deadLine)
121
returns (
122
uint256 shares,
123
uint256 baseAdjustedInAmount,
124
uint256 quoteAdjustedInAmount
125
)
126
{
127
address _dvm = dvmAddress;
128
(baseAdjustedInAmount, quoteAdjustedInAmount) = _addDVMLiquidity(
129
_dvm,
130
baseInAmount,
131
quoteInAmount
132
);
133
require(
134
baseAdjustedInAmount >= baseMinAmount && quoteAdjustedInAmount >= quoteMinAmount,
135
"DODOV2Proxy02: deposit amount is not enough"
136
);
137
138
_deposit(msg.sender, _dvm, IDODOV2(_dvm)._BASE_TOKEN_(), baseAdjustedInAmount, flag == 1);
139
_deposit(msg.sender, _dvm, IDODOV2(_dvm)._QUOTE_TOKEN_(), quoteAdjustedInAmount, flag == 2);
140
141
(shares, , ) = IDODOV2(_dvm).buyShares(msg.sender);
142
// refund dust eth
143
if (flag == 1 && msg.value > baseAdjustedInAmount) msg.sender.transfer(msg.value - baseAdjustedInAmount);
144
if (flag == 2 && msg.value > quoteAdjustedInAmount) msg.sender.transfer(msg.value - quoteAdjustedInAmount);
145
}
146
147
function _addDVMLiquidity(
148
address dvmAddress,
149
uint256 baseInAmount,
150
uint256 quoteInAmount
151
) internal view returns (uint256 baseAdjustedInAmount, uint256 quoteAdjustedInAmount) {
152
(uint256 baseReserve, uint256 quoteReserve) = IDODOV2(dvmAddress).getVaultReserve();
153
if (quoteReserve == 0 && baseReserve == 0) {
154
baseAdjustedInAmount = baseInAmount;
155
quoteAdjustedInAmount = quoteInAmount;
156
}
157
if (quoteReserve == 0 && baseReserve > 0) {
158
baseAdjustedInAmount = baseInAmount;
159
quoteAdjustedInAmount = 0;
160
}
161
if (quoteReserve > 0 && baseReserve > 0) {
162
uint256 baseIncreaseRatio = DecimalMath.divFloor(baseInAmount, baseReserve);
163
uint256 quoteIncreaseRatio = DecimalMath.divFloor(quoteInAmount, quoteReserve);
164
if (baseIncreaseRatio <= quoteIncreaseRatio) {
165
baseAdjustedInAmount = baseInAmount;
166
quoteAdjustedInAmount = DecimalMath.mulFloor(quoteReserve, baseIncreaseRatio);
167
} else {
168
quoteAdjustedInAmount = quoteInAmount;
169
baseAdjustedInAmount = DecimalMath.mulFloor(baseReserve, quoteIncreaseRatio);
170
}
171
}
172
}
173
174
// ============ DPP Functions (create & reset) ============
175
176
function createDODOPrivatePool(
177
address baseToken,
178
address quoteToken,
179
uint256 baseInAmount,
180
uint256 quoteInAmount,
181
uint256 lpFeeRate,
182
uint256 i,
183
uint256 k,
184
bool isOpenTwap,
185
uint256 deadLine
186
)
187
external
188
override
189
payable
190
preventReentrant
191
judgeExpired(deadLine)
192
returns (address newPrivatePool)
193
{
194
newPrivatePool = IDODOV2(_DPP_FACTORY_).createDODOPrivatePool();
195
196
address _baseToken = baseToken;
197
address _quoteToken = quoteToken;
198
_deposit(msg.sender, newPrivatePool, _baseToken, baseInAmount, _baseToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_);
199
_deposit(
200
msg.sender,
201
newPrivatePool,
202
_quoteToken,
203
quoteInAmount,
204
_quoteToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_
205
);
206
207
if (_baseToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_) _baseToken = _WETH_;
208
if (_quoteToken == _ETH_ADDRESS_) _quoteToken = _WETH_;
209
210
IDODOV2(_DPP_FACTORY_).initDODOPrivatePool(
211
newPrivatePool,
212
msg.sender,
213
_baseToken,
214
_quoteToken,
215
lpFeeRate,
216
k,
217
i,
218
isOpenTwap
219
);
220
}
221
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
74
8086
1304
1057
5725
565
Comments to Code 1057/5725 = 18%

TypeScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
44
8489
1337
695
6457
135
Tests to Code 6457/5725 = 113%
Last modified 17d ago