missing audit reports added for LiFiDEXAggregator #956
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces several new audit entries in the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (4)
audit/reports/2025.01.17_LiFiDexAggregator(v1.1.0).pdfis excluded by!**/*.pdfaudit/reports/2025.01.17_LiFiDexAggregator(v1.2.0).pdfis excluded by!**/*.pdfaudit/reports/2025.01.17_LiFiDexAggregator(v1.3.0).pdfis excluded by!**/*.pdfaudit/reports/2025.01.17_LiFiDexAggregator(v1.4.0).pdfis excluded by!**/*.pdf
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
audit/auditLog.json(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (2)
- GitHub Check: enforce-min-test-coverage
- GitHub Check: run-unit-tests
🔇 Additional comments (3)
audit/auditLog.json (3)
129-155: Verify audit report consistency with versions.All four audit entries (v1.1.0 through v1.4.0) reference the same audit report for v1.1.0. This seems inconsistent as each version should have its own audit report.
Please confirm:
- Are these separate audits or a single audit covering all versions?
- If separate audits, should each version have its own report?
- If a single audit, should the report filename reflect the version range?
134-134: Consider security implications of missing commit hashes.Using "n/a" for
auditCommitHashand auditing deployed contracts instead of specific commits has several security implications:
- No verifiable source code for the audit
- Difficulty in tracking changes between versions
- Challenge in reproducing the exact audited code
Consider:
- Adding deployed contract addresses for reference
- Including links to verified contract code on block explorers
- Documenting the deployment timestamps
Also applies to: 141-141, 148-148, 155-155
205-208: Review version sequence in auditedContracts.The versions appear to be added out of sequence, as v1.5.0, v1.6.0, and v1.5.1 exist after v1.4.0. This could lead to confusion about the upgrade path and version history.
Please clarify:
- The correct version sequence
- Whether v1.5.1 should be listed before v1.6.0
- The relationship between these versions and the existing audits
Test Coverage ReportLine Coverage: 78.66% (2238 / 2845 lines) |
Which Jira task belongs to this PR?
Why did I implement it this way?
These audit reports were missing so we added them to close the gaps.
Checklist before requesting a review
Checklist for reviewer (DO NOT DEPLOY and contracts BEFORE CHECKING THIS!!!)