P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
Powered By GitBook
Bancor Process Quality Review
This is a Process Quality Review completed on ____ 2020. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.5) and is documented here. The review was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is ___%, a ______. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

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.
    1.
    Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
    2.
    You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
    3.
    Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
    4.
    Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
    5.
    Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

Disclaimer

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.
Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

Executing Code Verification

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This review will answer the questions;
    1.
    Are the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)
    2.
    Is the code actively being used? (%)
    3.
    Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)
    4.
    Does the code match a tagged version in the code hosting platform? (%)
    5.
    Is the software repository healthy? (%)

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

Answer: Yes
They are available at Address https://docs.bancor.network/ethereum-contracts/addresses as indicated in the Appendix. This review only covers the contract ContractRegistry.sol.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 40%
Activity is 1 transactions a day, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance

100% More than 10 transactions a day 70% More than 10 transactions a week 40% More than 10 transactions a month 10% Less than 10 transactions a month 0% No activity

Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
0x52Ae12ABe5D8BD778BD5397F99cA900624CfADD4 is the Etherscan verified contract address.

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

Answer: __
Guidance:
100% All code matches and Repository was clearly labelled 60 % All code matches but no labelled repository. Repository was found manually 30% Almost all code does match perfectly and repository was found manually 0% Most matching Code could not be found
GitHub address : _
Deployed contracts in the following file;
Matching Repository: _

How to improve this score

Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Ensure an appropriately labeled tag exists corresponding to deployment dates. Release tags are clearly communicated.

Is development software repository healthy? (%)

Answer: 100%
With 5 branches and 3640 commits, this is a healthy repository.

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
    1.
    Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
    2.
    Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)
    3.
    Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
    4.
    Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)
    5.
    Is it possible to trace software requirements to the implementation in code (%)

Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
Location: The Bancor Whitepaper is their documentation.

How to improve this score

Ensure the white paper is available for download from your website or at least the software repository. Ideally update the whitepaper to meet the capabilities of your present application.

Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: 100%
The requirements are extremely well explained in the Bancor API. All of the specific contracts have detailed explanations with reference to the code within them. This is extremely well organized, and well written documentation.

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

Answer: 100%
There are detailed comments documenting the functions on all level of code.
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 89% commenting to code.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding comments to the deployed code such that it comprehensively covers the code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth Software Requirements.

Is it possible to trace requirements to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 100%
the API specifically defines all parts of the code. there is clear tracability throughout all of the documentation.
Guidance: 100% - Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code 60% - Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability 40% - Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions 0% - No connection between documentation and code

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding traceability from requirements to code such that it is clear where each requirement is coded. For reference, check the SecurEth guidelines on traceability.

Testing

This section looks at the software testing available. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
    1.
    Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
    2.
    Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)
    3.
    Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)
    4.
    Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)
    5.
    Report of the results (%)
    6.
    Formal Verification test done (%)
    7.
    Stress Testing environment (%)

Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 100%
There was a large test suite that covered all the deployed code. There are 2 testing repositories:

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

Answer: __
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
Instructions on how to run the testing is found in Bancor's documentation.

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
The testing is packaged with the deployed code.

How to improve this score

Improving this score requires redeployment of the code, with the tests. This score gives credit to those who test their code before deployment and release them together. If a developer adds tests after deployment they can gain full points for all test elements except this one.

Report of the results (%)

Answer: __

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: __

Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
There is significant evidence of stress-testing on the Ropsen network.

Audits

Answer: 100%
There are 5 different audits published. Links can be found in the Security Page.
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 Caliburn Consulting.
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.
Career wise I am a business development manager for an avionics supplier.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

1
// SPDX-License-Identifier: SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE
2
pragma solidity 0.6.12;
3
import "./IConversionPathFinder.sol";
4
import "./converter/interfaces/IConverter.sol";
5
import "./converter/interfaces/IConverterAnchor.sol";
6
import "./converter/interfaces/IBancorFormula.sol";
7
import "./utility/ContractRegistryClient.sol";
8
import "./utility/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
9
import "./utility/TokenHolder.sol";
10
import "./utility/SafeMath.sol";
11
import "./token/interfaces/IEtherToken.sol";
12
import "./token/interfaces/IDSToken.sol";
13
import "./bancorx/interfaces/IBancorX.sol";
14
15
// interface of older converters for backward compatibility
16
interface ILegacyConverter {
17
function change(IERC20Token _sourceToken, IERC20Token _targetToken, uint256 _amount, uint256 _minReturn) external returns (uint256);
18
}
19
20
/**
21
* @dev The BancorNetwork contract is the main entry point for Bancor token conversions.
22
* It also allows for the conversion of any token in the Bancor Network to any other token in a single
23
* transaction by providing a conversion path.
24
*
25
* A note on Conversion Path: Conversion path is a data structure that is used when converting a token
26
* to another token in the Bancor Network, when the conversion cannot necessarily be done by a single
27
* converter and might require multiple 'hops'.
28
* The path defines which converters should be used and what kind of conversion should be done in each step.
29
*
30
* The path format doesn't include complex structure; instead, it is represented by a single array
31
* in which each 'hop' is represented by a 2-tuple - converter anchor & target token.
32
* In addition, the first element is always the source token.
33
* The converter anchor is only used as a pointer to a converter (since converter addresses are more
34
* likely to change as opposed to anchor addresses).
35
*
36
* Format:
37
* [source token, converter anchor, target token, converter anchor, target token...]
38
*/
39
contract BancorNetwork is TokenHolder, ContractRegistryClient, ReentrancyGuard {
40
using SafeMath for uint256;
41
42
uint256 private constant PPM_RESOLUTION = 1000000;
43
IERC20Token private constant ETH_RESERVE_ADDRESS = IERC20Token(0xEeeeeEeeeEeEeeEeEeEeeEEEeeeeEeeeeeeeEEeE);
44
45
struct ConversionStep {
46
IConverter converter;
47
IConverterAnchor anchor;
48
IERC20Token sourceToken;
49
IERC20Token targetToken;
50
address payable beneficiary;
51
bool isV28OrHigherConverter;
52
bool processAffiliateFee;
53
}
54
55
uint256 public maxAffiliateFee = 30000; // maximum affiliate-fee
56
57
mapping (IERC20Token => bool) public etherTokens; // list of all supported ether tokens
58
59
/**
60
* @dev triggered when a conversion between two tokens occurs
61
*
62
* @param _smartToken anchor governed by the converter
63
* @param _fromToken source ERC20 token
64
* @param _toToken target ERC20 token
65
* @param _fromAmount amount converted, in the source token
66
* @param _toAmount amount returned, minus conversion fee
67
* @param _trader wallet that initiated the trade
68
*/
69
event Conversion(
70
IConverterAnchor indexed _smartToken,
71
IERC20Token indexed _fromToken,
72
IERC20Token indexed _toToken,
73
uint256 _fromAmount,
74
uint256 _toAmount,
75
address _trader
76
);
77
78
/**
79
* @dev initializes a new BancorNetwork instance
80
*
81
* @param _registry address of a contract registry contract
82
*/
83
constructor(IContractRegistry _registry) ContractRegistryClient(_registry) public {
84
etherTokens[ETH_RESERVE_ADDRESS] = true;
85
}
86
87
/**
88
* @dev allows the owner to update the maximum affiliate-fee
89
*
90
* @param _maxAffiliateFee maximum affiliate-fee
91
*/
92
function setMaxAffiliateFee(uint256 _maxAffiliateFee)
93
public
94
ownerOnly
95
{
96
require(_maxAffiliateFee <= PPM_RESOLUTION, "ERR_INVALID_AFFILIATE_FEE");
97
maxAffiliateFee = _maxAffiliateFee;
98
}
99
100
/**
101
* @dev allows the owner to register/unregister ether tokens
102
*
103
* @param _token ether token contract address
104
* @param _register true to register, false to unregister
105
*/
106
function registerEtherToken(IEtherToken _token, bool _register)
107
public
108
ownerOnly
109
validAddress(address(_token))
110
notThis(address(_token))
111
{
112
etherTokens[_token] = _register;
113
}
114
115
/**
116
* @dev returns the conversion path between two tokens in the network
117
* note that this method is quite expensive in terms of gas and should generally be called off-chain
118
*
119
* @param _sourceToken source token address
120
* @param _targetToken target token address
121
*
122
* @return conversion path between the two tokens
123
*/
124
function conversionPath(IERC20Token _sourceToken, IERC20Token _targetToken) public view returns (address[] memory) {
125
IConversionPathFinder pathFinder = IConversionPathFinder(addressOf(CONVERSION_PATH_FINDER));
126
return pathFinder.findPath(_sourceToken, _targetToken);
127
}
128
129
/**
130
* @dev returns the expected target amount of converting a given amount on a given path
131
* note that there is no support for circular paths
132
*
133
* @param _path conversion path (see conversion path format above)
134
* @param _amount amount of _path[0] tokens received from the sender
135
*
136
* @return expected target amount
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
9
3069
352
1280
1437
124
Comments to Code 1280/ 1437 = 89%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
8
2012
532
122
1358
59
Tests to Code 1358 / 1959 = 70%
Last modified 11mo ago