Canto Liquidity Mining Protocol - wahedtalash77's results

Non-Critical Findings

[N-01] NatSpec comments should be increased in contracts

https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/v0.8.15/natspec-format.html

[N-02] Function writing that does not comply with the Solidity Style Guide

https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/v0.8.17/style-guide.html

[N-03] Showing the actual values of numbers in NatSpec comments makes checking and reading code easier

[N-04] Use SMTChecker

The highest tier of smart contract behavior assurance is formal mathematical verification. All assertions that are made are guaranteed to be true across all inputs → The quality of your asserts is the quality of your verification.

https://twitter.com/0xOwenThurm/status/1614359896350425088?t=dbG9gHFigBX85Rv29lOjIQ&s=19

[N-05] Use the delete keyword instead of assigning a value of 0

Using the ‘delete’ keyword instead of assigning a ‘0’ value is a detailed optimization that increases code readability and audit quality, and clearly indicates the intent.

Other hand, if use delete instead 0 value assign , it will be gas saved.

[N-6] Function writing that does not comply with the Solidity Style Guide

Context All Contracts

Description Order of Functions; ordering helps readers identify which functions they can call and to find the constructor and fallback definitions easier. But there are contracts in the project that do not comply with this.

https://docs.soliditylang.org/en/v0.8.17/style-guide.html

Functions should be grouped according to their visibility and ordered:

constructor receive function (if exists) fallback function (if exists) external public internal private within a grouping, place the view and pure functions last

[S-01] You can explain the operation of critical functions in NatSpec with an infographic.