P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.6
Retired
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. 1.
    Are the executing code addresses readily available? (Y/N)
  2. 2.
    Is the code actively being used? (%)
  3. 3.
    Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)
  4. 4.
    Is there a development history visible? (%)
  5. 5.
    Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

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

Answer: Yes

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
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. 1.
    Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
  2. 2.
    Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)
  3. 3.
    Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
  4. 4.
    Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)
  5. 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. 1.
    Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
  2. 2.
    Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)
  3. 3.
    Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)
  4. 4.
    Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)
  5. 5.
    Report of the results (%)
  6. 6.
    Formal Verification test done (%)
  7. 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

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%
Guidance:
  1. 1.
    Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (100%)
  2. 2.
    Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (90%)
  3. 3.
    Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public. (70%)
  4. 4.
    No audit performed (20%)
  5. 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

1
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
2
3
pragma solidity 0.6.12;
4
5
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
6
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/IERC20.sol";
7
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
8
import "../Pausable.sol";
9
import "../interfaces/aave/IAave.sol";
10
import "../interfaces/maker/IMakerDAO.sol";
11
import "../interfaces/vesper/ICollateralManager.sol";
12
import "../interfaces/vesper/IController.sol";
13
import "../interfaces/vesper/IStrategy.sol";
14
import "../interfaces/vesper/IVesperPool.sol";
15
import "../interfaces/uniswap/IUniswapV2Router02.sol";
16
17
/// @dev This strategy will deposit collateral token in Maker and borrow DAI
18
/// and deposit borrowed DAI in Aave to earn interest on it.
19
abstract contract AaveMakerStrategy is IStrategy, Pausable {
20
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
21
using SafeMath for uint256;
22
address public constant WETH = 0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2;
23
address public constant DAI = 0x6B175474E89094C44Da98b954EedeAC495271d0F;
24
address public constant AAVE_ADDRESSES_PROVIDER = 0x24a42fD28C976A61Df5D00D0599C34c4f90748c8;
25
ICollateralManager public immutable cm;
26
IController public immutable controller;
27
IERC20 public immutable collateralToken;
28
bytes32 public immutable collateralType;
29
uint256 public immutable vaultNum;
30
address public immutable override pool;
31
uint256 public lastRebalanceBlock;
32
uint256 public highWater;
33
uint256 public lowWater;
34
35
uint256 internal constant MAX_UINT_VALUE = uint256(-1);
36
uint256 private constant WAT = 10**16;
37
AToken private immutable aToken;
38
39
mapping(address => bool) private reservedToken;
40
41
constructor(
42
address _controller,
43
address _pool,
44
address _collateralToken,
45
address _cm,
46
bytes32 _collateralType
47
) public {
48
require(_controller != address(0), "Controller address is zero");
49
require(IController(_controller).isPool(_pool), "Not a valid pool");
50
controller = IController(_controller);
51
collateralType = _collateralType;
52
vaultNum = _createVault(_collateralType, _cm);
53
pool = _pool;
54
collateralToken = IERC20(_collateralToken);
55
cm = ICollateralManager(_cm);
56
address aTokenAddress = _getToken();
57
aToken = AToken(aTokenAddress);
58
59
reservedToken[_collateralToken] = true;
60
reservedToken[aTokenAddress] = true;
61
reservedToken[DAI] = true;
62
}
63
64
modifier live() {
65
require(!paused || _msgSender() == address(controller), "Contract has paused");
66
_;
67
}
68
69
modifier onlyAuthorized() {
70
require(
71
_msgSender() == address(controller) || _msgSender() == pool,
72
"Caller is not authorized"
73
);
74
_;
75
}
76
77
modifier onlyController() {
78
require(_msgSender() == address(controller), "Caller is not the controller");
79
_;
80
}
81
82
modifier onlyPool() {
83
require(_msgSender() == pool, "Caller is not pool");
84
_;
85
}
86
87
function pause() external override onlyController {
88
_pause();
89
}
90
91
function unpause() external override onlyController {
92
_unpause();
93
}
94
95
/// @dev Approve Dai and collateralToken to collateral manager
96
function approveToken() external onlyController {
97
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(cm), MAX_UINT_VALUE);
98
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(cm), MAX_UINT_VALUE);
99
}
100
101
/// @dev Reset Dai and collateralToken approval of collateral manager
102
function resetApproval() external onlyController {
103
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(cm), 0);
104
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(cm), 0);
105
}
106
107
/**
108
* @dev Deposit collateral token into Maker vault.
109
* @param _amount Amount of collateral token
110
*/
111
function deposit(uint256 _amount) external override onlyPool {
112
_deposit(_amount);
113
}
114
115
/**
116
* @dev Called during withdrawal process.
117
* Withdraw is not allowed if pool in underwater.
118
* If pool is underwater, calling resurface() will bring pool above water.
119
* It will impact share price in pool and that's why it has to be called before withdraw.
120
*/
121
function beforeWithdraw() external override onlyPool {
122
if (isUnderwater()) {
123
_resurface();
124
}
125
}
126
127
/**
128
* @dev Withdraw collateral token from Maker and in order to do that strategy
129
* has to withdraw Dai from Aave and payback Dai in Maker.
130
* @param _amount Amount of collateral token to be withdrawn
131
*/
132
function withdraw(uint256 _amount) external override onlyAuthorized {
133
_withdraw(_amount);
134
}
135
136
/**
137
* @dev Rebalance earning and withdraw all collateral.
138
* Controller only function, called when migrating strategy.
139
*/
140
function withdrawAllWithRebalance() external onlyController {
141
_rebalanceEarned();
142
_withdrawAll();
143
}
144
145
/**
146
* @dev Withdraw all collateral. No rebalance earning.
147
* Controller only function, called when migrating strategy.
148
*/
149
function withdrawAll() external override onlyController {
150
_withdrawAll();
151
}
152
153
/**
154
* @dev Wrapper function for rebalanceEarned and rebalanceCollateral
155
* Anyone can call it except when paused.
156
*/
157
function rebalance() external override live {
158
_rebalanceEarned();
159
_rebalanceCollateral();
160
}
161
162
/**
163
* @dev Rebalance collateral and debt in Maker.
164
* Based on defined risk parameter either borrow more DAI from Maker or
165
* payback some DAI in Maker. It will try to mitigate risk of liquidation.
166
* Anyone can call it except when paused.
167
*/
168
function rebalanceCollateral() external live {
169
_rebalanceCollateral();
170
}
171
172
/**
173
* @dev Convert earned DAI from Aave to collateral token
174
* Also calculate interest fee on earning from Aave and transfer fee to fee collector.
175
* Anyone can call it except when paused.
176
*/
177
function rebalanceEarned() external live {
178
_rebalanceEarned();
179
}
180
181
/**
182
* @dev If pool is underwater this function will resolve underwater condition.
183
* If Debt in Maker is greater than aDAI balance in Aave then pool in underwater.
184
* Lowering DAI debt in Maker will resolve underwater condtion.
185
* Resolve: Calculate required collateral token to lower DAI debt. Withdraw required
186
* collateral token from pool and/or Maker and convert those to DAI via Uniswap.
187
* Finally payback debt in Maker using DAI.
188
*/
189
function resurface() external live {
190
_resurface();
191
}
192
193
/// @dev sweep given ERC20 token to vesper pool
194
function sweepErc20(address _fromToken) external {
195
uint256 amount = IERC20(_fromToken).balanceOf(address(this));
196
IERC20(_fromToken).safeTransfer(pool, amount);
197
}
198
199
function updateBalancingFactor(uint256 _highWater, uint256 _lowWater) external onlyController {
200
require(_lowWater != 0, "Value is zero");
201
require(_highWater > _lowWater, "highWater <= lowWater");
202
highWater = _highWater.mul(WAT);
203
lowWater = _lowWater.mul(WAT);
204
}
205
206
/**
207
* @notice Returns interest earned since last rebalance.
208
* @dev Make sure to return value in collateral token and in order to do that
209
* we are using Uniswap to get collateral amount for earned DAI.
210
*/
211
function interestEarned() external view returns (uint256) {
212
uint256 aDaiBalance = aToken.balanceOf(pool);
213
uint256 debt = cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum);
214
if (aDaiBalance > debt) {
215
uint256 daiEarned = aDaiBalance.sub(debt);
216
IUniswapV2Router02 uniswapRouter = IUniswapV2Router02(controller.uniswapRouter());
217
address[] memory path = _getPath(DAI, address(collateralToken));
218
return uniswapRouter.getAmountsOut(daiEarned, path)[path.length - 1];
219
}
220
return 0;
221
}
222
223
/// @dev Returns true if strategy can be upgraded.
224
function isUpgradable() external view override returns (bool) {
225
return totalLocked() == 0;
226
}
227
228
function isReservedToken(address _token) external view override returns (bool) {
229
return reservedToken[_token];
230
}
231
232
/// @dev Address of Aave DAI token
233
function token() external view override returns (address) {
234
return address(aToken);
235
}
236
237
/// @dev Check if pool is underwater i.e. debt is greater than aDai in Aave
238
function isUnderwater() public view returns (bool) {
239
return cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum) > aToken.balanceOf(pool);
240
}
241
242
/// @dev Returns total collateral locked in Maker vault
243
function totalLocked() public view override returns (uint256) {
244
return convertFrom18(cm.getVaultBalance(vaultNum));
245
}
246
247
/// @dev Convert from 18 decimals to token defined decimals. Default no conversion.
248
function convertFrom18(uint256 _amount) public pure virtual returns (uint256) {
249
return _amount;
250
}
251
252
/// @dev Create new Maker vault
253
function _createVault(bytes32 _collateralType, address _cm) internal returns (uint256 vaultId) {
254
address mcdManager = ICollateralManager(_cm).mcdManager();
255
ManagerLike manager = ManagerLike(mcdManager);
256
vaultId = manager.open(_collateralType, address(this));
257
manager.cdpAllow(vaultId, address(this), 1);
258
259
//hope and cpdAllow on vat for collateralManager's address
260
VatLike(manager.vat()).hope(_cm);
261
manager.cdpAllow(vaultId, _cm, 1);
262
263
//Register vault with collateral Manager
264
ICollateralManager(_cm).registerVault(vaultId, _collateralType);
265
}
266
267
function _deposit(uint256 _amount) internal {
268
collateralToken.safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), _amount);
269
cm.depositCollateral(vaultNum, _amount);
270
}
271
272
function _depositDaiToAave(uint256 _amount) internal {
273
AaveAddressesProvider aaveProvider = AaveAddressesProvider(AAVE_ADDRESSES_PROVIDER);
274
address aavePool = aaveProvider.getLendingPool();
275
address aavePoolCore = aaveProvider.getLendingPoolCore();
276
277
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(aavePoolCore, 0);
278
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(aavePoolCore, _amount);
279
AavePool(aavePool).deposit(DAI, _amount, controller.aaveReferralCode());
280
IERC20(address(aToken)).safeTransfer(pool, _amount);
281
}
282
283
/**
284
* @dev Deposit fee into Vesper pool to get Vesper pool shares.
285
* Transfer fee, Vesper pool shares, to fee collector.
286
*/
287
function _handleFee(uint256 fee) internal {
288
if (fee != 0) {
289
collateralToken.safeApprove(pool, 0);
290
collateralToken.safeApprove(pool, fee);
291
IVesperPool(pool).deposit(fee);
292
uint256 feeInShare = IERC20(pool).balanceOf(address(this));
293
IERC20(pool).safeTransfer(controller.feeCollector(pool), feeInShare);
294
}
295
}
296
297
function _moveDaiToMaker(uint256 _amount) internal {
298
if (_amount != 0) {
299
_withdrawDaiFromAave(_amount);
300
cm.payback(vaultNum, _amount);
301
}
302
}
303
304
function _moveDaiFromMaker(uint256 _amount) internal {
305
cm.borrow(vaultNum, _amount);
306
// In edge case, we might be able to borrow less, so better check how much DAI we borrowed
307
_amount = IERC20(DAI).balanceOf(address(this));
308
_depositDaiToAave(_amount);
309
}
310
311
function _rebalanceCollateral() internal {
312
_deposit(collateralToken.balanceOf(pool));
313
(
314
uint256 collateralLocked,
315
uint256 debt,
316
uint256 collateralUsdRate,
317
uint256 collateralRatio,
318
uint256 minimumDebt
319
) = cm.getVaultInfo(vaultNum);
320
uint256 maxDebt = collateralLocked.mul(collateralUsdRate).div(highWater);
321
if (maxDebt < minimumDebt) {
322
// Dusting scenario. Payback all DAI
323
_moveDaiToMaker(debt);
324
} else {
325
if (collateralRatio > highWater) {
326
require(!isUnderwater(), "Pool is underwater");
327
_moveDaiFromMaker(maxDebt.sub(debt));
328
} else if (collateralRatio < lowWater) {
329
// Redeem DAI from Aave and deposit in maker
330
_moveDaiToMaker(debt.sub(maxDebt));
331
}
332
}
333
}
334
335
function _rebalanceEarned() internal {
336
require(
337
(block.number - lastRebalanceBlock) >= controller.rebalanceFriction(pool),
338
"Can not rebalance"
339
);
340
lastRebalanceBlock = block.number;
341
uint256 debt = cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum);
342
_withdrawExcessDaiFromAave(debt);
343
uint256 balance = IERC20(DAI).balanceOf(address(this));
344
if (balance != 0) {
345
IUniswapV2Router02 uniswapRouter = IUniswapV2Router02(controller.uniswapRouter());
346
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), 0);
347
IERC20(DAI).safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), balance);
348
address[] memory path = _getPath(DAI, address(collateralToken));
349
// Swap and get collateralToken here.
350
// It is possible that amount out resolves to 0
351
// Which will cause the swap to fail
352
try uniswapRouter.getAmountsOut(balance, path) returns (uint256[] memory amounts) {
353
if (amounts[path.length - 1] != 0) {
354
uniswapRouter.swapExactTokensForTokens(
355
balance,
356
1,
357
path,
358
address(this),
359
now + 30
360
);
361
uint256 collateralBalance = collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this));
362
uint256 fee = collateralBalance.mul(controller.interestFee(pool)).div(1e18);
363
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, collateralBalance.sub(fee));
364
_handleFee(fee);
365
}
366
} catch {}
367
}
368
}
369
370
function _resurface() internal {
371
uint256 earnBalance = aToken.balanceOf(pool);
372
uint256 debt = cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum);
373
require(debt > earnBalance, "Pool is above water");
374
uint256 shortAmount = debt.sub(earnBalance);
375
IUniswapV2Router02 uniswapRouter = IUniswapV2Router02(controller.uniswapRouter());
376
address[] memory path = _getPath(address(collateralToken), DAI);
377
uint256 tokenNeeded = uniswapRouter.getAmountsIn(shortAmount, path)[0];
378
379
uint256 balance = collateralToken.balanceOf(pool);
380
381
// If pool has more balance than tokenNeeded, get what needed from pool
382
// else get pool balance from pool and remaining from Maker vault
383
if (balance >= tokenNeeded) {
384
collateralToken.safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), tokenNeeded);
385
} else {
386
cm.withdrawCollateral(vaultNum, tokenNeeded.sub(balance));
387
collateralToken.safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), balance);
388
}
389
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), 0);
390
collateralToken.safeApprove(address(uniswapRouter), tokenNeeded);
391
uniswapRouter.swapExactTokensForTokens(tokenNeeded, 1, path, address(this), now + 30);
392
uint256 daiBalance = IERC20(DAI).balanceOf(address(this));
393
cm.payback(vaultNum, daiBalance);
394
395
// If Uniswap operation leave any collateral dust then send it to pool
396
uint256 _collateralbalance = collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this));
397
if (_collateralbalance != 0) {
398
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, _collateralbalance);
399
}
400
}
401
402
function _withdrawDaiFromAave(uint256 _amount) internal {
403
IERC20(address(aToken)).safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), _amount);
404
aToken.redeem(_amount);
405
}
406
407
function _withdrawExcessDaiFromAave(uint256 _base) internal {
408
uint256 balance = aToken.balanceOf(pool);
409
if (balance > _base) {
410
uint256 amount = balance.sub(_base);
411
IERC20(address(aToken)).safeTransferFrom(pool, address(this), amount);
412
aToken.redeem(amount);
413
}
414
}
415
416
function _withdraw(uint256 _amount) internal {
417
(
418
uint256 collateralLocked,
419
uint256 debt,
420
uint256 collateralUsdRate,
421
uint256 collateralRatio,
422
uint256 minimumDebt
423
) = cm.whatWouldWithdrawDo(vaultNum, _amount);
424
if (debt != 0 && collateralRatio < lowWater) {
425
// If this withdraw results in Low Water scenario.
426
uint256 maxDebt = collateralLocked.mul(collateralUsdRate).div(highWater);
427
if (maxDebt < minimumDebt) {
428
// This is Dusting scenario
429
_moveDaiToMaker(debt);
430
} else if (maxDebt < debt) {
431
_moveDaiToMaker(debt.sub(maxDebt));
432
}
433
}
434
cm.withdrawCollateral(vaultNum, _amount);
435
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this)));
436
}
437
438
function _withdrawAll() internal {
439
_moveDaiToMaker(cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum));
440
require(cm.getVaultDebt(vaultNum) == 0, "Debt should be 0");
441
cm.withdrawCollateral(vaultNum, totalLocked());
442
collateralToken.safeTransfer(pool, collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this)));
443
}
444
445
/// @dev Get aToken address
446
function _getToken() internal view returns (address) {
447
AaveAddressesProvider aaveProvider = AaveAddressesProvider(AAVE_ADDRESSES_PROVIDER);
448
address aavePoolCore = aaveProvider.getLendingPoolCore();
449
return AavePoolCore(aavePoolCore).getReserveATokenAddress(DAI);
450
}
451
452
function _getPath(address _from, address _to) internal pure returns (address[] memory) {
453
address[] memory path;
454
if (_from == WETH || _to == WETH) {
455
path = new address[](2);
456
path[0] = _from;
457
path[1] = _to;
458
} else {
459
path = new address[](3);
460
path[0] = _from;
461
path[1] = WETH;
462
path[2] = _to;
463
}
464
return path;
465
}
466
}
467
Copied!

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%
Last modified 9mo ago