Juicebox V2 contest - sashik_eth's results

G01 - unchecked block can be used for gas efficiency of the expression that can't overflow/underflow

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/main/contracts/JBFundingCycleStore.sol#L722

uint256 _discountMultiple = _startDistance / _baseFundingCycle.duration; 

_baseFundingCycle.duration > 0 due to check on L704.

---

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/main/contracts/JBSingleTokenPaymentTerminalStore.sol#L518-L522

    if (reclaimAmount > 0)
      balanceOf[IJBSingleTokenPaymentTerminal(msg.sender)][_projectId] =
        balanceOf[IJBSingleTokenPaymentTerminal(msg.sender)][_projectId] -
        reclaimAmount; 

Can't underflow due to check on L514.

---

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/main/contracts/JBSingleTokenPaymentTerminalStore.sol#L598-L601

    balanceOf[IJBSingleTokenPaymentTerminal(msg.sender)][_projectId] =
      balanceOf[IJBSingleTokenPaymentTerminal(msg.sender)][_projectId] -
      distributedAmount; 

Can't underflow due to check on L589.

---

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/main/contracts/JBSingleTokenPaymentTerminalStore.sol#L834

return _balanceOf > _distributionLimitRemaining ? _balanceOf - _distributionLimitRemaining : 0;

Can't underflow due to statement logic.

---

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/main/contracts/JBTokenStore.sol#L350

else _claimedTokensToBurn = _unclaimedBalance < _amount ? _amount - _unclaimedBalance : 0; 

Can't underflow due to statement logic.

---

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/main/contracts/JBTokenStore.sol#L409

unclaimedBalanceOf[_holder][_projectId] = unclaimedBalanceOf[_holder][_projectId] - _amount;

Can't underflow due to check on L406.

---

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/main/contracts/JBTokenStore.sol#L448

unclaimedBalanceOf[_holder][_projectId] = unclaimedBalanceOf[_holder][_projectId] - _amount;

Can't underflow due to check on L445.

---

Counter i++ in for loop could be unchecked when it cann't overflow:

contracts/JBController.sol:913  for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _splits.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBController.sol:1014 for (uint256 _i; _i < _fundAccessConstraints.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:139 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminalsOf[_projectId].length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:167 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminalsOf[_projectId].length; _i++) 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:275 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminals.length; _i++) 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:276 for (uint256 _j = _i + 1; _j < _terminals.length; _j++) 
contracts/JBFundingCycleStore.sol:724 for (uint256 i = 0; i < _discountMultiple; i++) { 
contracts/JBOperatorStore.sol:85  for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _permissionIndexes.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBOperatorStore.sol:135 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _operatorData.length; _i++) {
contracts/JBOperatorStore.sol:165 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _indexes.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBSingleTokenPaymentTerminalStore.sol:862 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _terminals.length; _i++)  
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:204 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _currentSplits.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:211 for (uint256 _j = 0; _j < _splits.length; _j++) { 
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:229 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _splits.length; _i++) {
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:304 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _splitCount; _i++) { 

G02 - Using prefix increment

Prefix increment is cheaper than postfix increment. Consider using ++i in next lines:

contracts/JBController.sol:913  for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _splits.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBController.sol:1014 for (uint256 _i; _i < _fundAccessConstraints.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:139 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminalsOf[_projectId].length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:167 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminalsOf[_projectId].length; _i++) 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:275 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminals.length; _i++) 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:276 for (uint256 _j = _i + 1; _j < _terminals.length; _j++) 
contracts/JBFundingCycleStore.sol:724 for (uint256 i = 0; i < _discountMultiple; i++) { 
contracts/JBOperatorStore.sol:85  for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _permissionIndexes.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBOperatorStore.sol:135 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _operatorData.length; _i++) {
contracts/JBOperatorStore.sol:165 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _indexes.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBSingleTokenPaymentTerminalStore.sol:862 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _terminals.length; _i++)  
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:204 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _currentSplits.length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:211 for (uint256 _j = 0; _j < _splits.length; _j++) { 
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:229 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _splits.length; _i++) {
contracts/JBSplitsStore.sol:304 for (uint256 _i = 0; _i < _splitCount; _i++) { 

G03 - Cache array length before for loops

Reading storage array length inside for loop costs more gas than reading its cached value.

contracts/JBDirectory.sol:139 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminalsOf[_projectId].length; _i++) { 
contracts/JBDirectory.sol:167 for (uint256 _i; _i < _terminalsOf[_projectId].length; _i++) 

G04 - Cache storage variables in memory

For the storage variables that will be accessed multiple times, cache and read from the stack can save gas from each read if variable accessed more than once:

contracts/JBDirectory.sol:135 isTerminalOf(_projectId, _primaryTerminalOf[_projectId][_token]) // 2 SLOADs _primaryTerminalOf

contracts/JBDirectory.sol:231 controllerOf[_projectId] != address(0) && // 2 SLOADs controllerOf