Post-Judging QA

[liveactionllama]

1. Please post feedback about specific findings on the relevant issue in this repo.
2. Post a comment in this discussion linking to all findings you've commented on, along with any general feedback for the judge.

The judge for this contest is @alex-ppg.

Both the Validation repo and the Findings repo will be open to wardens with the SR role, for the purposes of post-judging QA.

• All post-judging QA requests must be posted in this Github Discussion in the findings repo.
• QA and Gas reports closed by Validators (i.e. not added to the findings repo) are NOT eligible.

Reminders

• Please keep your comments as fact-based as possible.
• C4 judges have final authority in determining validity and severity.
• Please link to specific issues and don't try to start discussions here.
• Please familiarize yourselves with our Good Citizen Policy.

Thank you!

[CrystallineButterfly]

Hey @alex-ppg Thank you for judging 🫡 Please re-review #257 I would appreciate a comment on why it was marked unsatisfactory, as I don't see any invalid lows I did, unnecessary maybe, but not invalid. I would appreciate it a lot to better my report quality next time.

All the best- Kell

[pkqs90]

Hey @alex-ppg, thanks for the quick judging on this complicated codebase.

I added some comments on #27, #26, #32, #38, #39. Thanks!

[pkqs90]

Also left a comment on #95.

[sathishpic22]

Hi @alex-ppg

Please check my comments on issues code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#586 , code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#599 , code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#610

Thank you

[Tigerfrake]

Hey @alex-ppg, thanks for the quick judging.

I added some comments on:

1. #88
2. #143
3. #78
4. #302
5. #290
6. #262

[0xAbhay]

Hey @alex-ppg, could you kindly check my comments on #567, #572, #612, #97, #46, and #94?

Thanks for judging so quickly. I appreciate your work!

[alex-ppg]

PJQA concluded a few days ago and no further feedback was requested. Additionally, all feedback that has been supplied beyond PJQA is invalid. I strongly advise you to not contribute any further so as to avoid disciplinary action.

[cholakovvv]

Hey @alex-ppg, thanks for the judging!

Could you kindly check my comments on #63 and #184?

[pratokko]

Hey @alex-ppg, thank you for the quick judging. I left comments on:

code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#359

code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#350

code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#349

[blckhv]

Hey @alex-ppg, thanks for judging!
I left some comments on #62 and 341.

[0xWeb3boy]

Hey @alex-ppg ,
I appreciate your swift and thorough judging
One of my issues is wrongly misunderstood and not moved from validation repo to the finding repo:
I've left a comment on below mentioned issue

code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#353

[0xklapouchy]

Hi @alex-ppg,

If possible please take a look at my comments in 593 and 594.

[0xklapouchy]

Hi @alex-ppg,
Left you a comment in 593.

[0xklapouchy]

And in #27

[imsrybr0]

Hi @alex-ppg,

Thanks for judging this contest, can you please review my comments in : #22, #23, #24.

Thank you

[imsrybr0]

Hi @alex-ppg, answered in #22 and #23 👍

[Shubh0412]

Hello @alex-ppg
Thank you for your efforts in judging this contest.

Please find time to look at the comment left on issue #555 in the Validation Repo

[Shubh0412]

Hi @alex-ppg
Left a final comment on the issue #555.
Please do take a look.

[NishithPat]

Hi @alex-ppg

Thank you for judging. Can you please look at #56?

Thanks

[NishithPat]

Please have a look at this as well - code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#601

[crypticdefense]

Hello @alex-ppg, thank you for your time and effort for judging this contest.

I have left comments on the following issues from the validation pool. Forgive me for mentioning so many issues, but I genuinely believe they have been overlooked during validation, and can assure that I am not just wasting time.

Highs: #448, #497, #489, #495

Mediums: #496, #498, #499, #504

Thank you so much for your time.

[alex-ppg]

Hey @crypticdefense, thank you for your PJQA contribution! I had a look at all the issues and can say that they have all been invalidated correctly. To note, they exist in the validation repository and were invalidated by the validators of the contest; I agree with their judgments. Here are a couple of issues in your follow-up feedback:

• 448: A pair's creation will set the timestamp at the block.timestamp when it is created as seen here: https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-05-predy/blob/main/src/libraries/logic/AddPairLogic.sol#L185
• 497: The PoC and logic are invalid as the multiplication will occur prior to the division, permitting adequate accuracy in the calculation.
• 489: The code does not need to swap if the tick has not exceeded its previously configured range.
• 495: The exponent is accounted for in the _decimalsDiff configuration.
• 496: The overflow is unlikely to manifest for any price measurement that would be observed in a production environment.
• 498: It is common for interest accrual to be "reset" even if no interest actually accumulated to prevent retro-active application of interest.
• 499: This is inconsequential, as the result of the function will not change even if we incorporate the recommended change. In reality, the code is more efficient in its current state.
• 504: Reversing the calculations would cause the result value to remain the same. The purpose is to find a usable tick, and the code is meant to convert the result into a multiple of tickSpacing.

[nnez]

Hey there @alex-ppg
Thanks for your swift action in judging.

I would appreciate it if you could take a look at #67 and reconsider the ruling.

[Odhiambo526]

@alex-ppg Left a comment here Kindly check
#146

[Odhiambo526]

Just added more comments here #338 #309

[Yasashari]

@alex-ppg
Thanks for judging this contest, Could you please review these reports #381 #267?

[coffiasd]

Hey @alex-ppg, thanks for the quick judging.

I added some comments on:
code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#243

[Tri-pathi]

Thanks for judging @alex-ppg

added comments on #86 #209 and 627

[Tri-pathi]

@alex-ppg

Thanks and added comments on #95 #86 #209 and 627

[Bauchibred]

Hi @alex-ppg, thanks for judging, added 4 PJQA comments, kindly check them here, here, here & here.

[YordanVuchev]

Hey @alex-ppg , could you pleace check them again, I left some comments that explain the validity of the findings
code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#454
code-423n4/2024-05-predy-validation#450

[alex-ppg]

PJQA concluded a few days ago and no further feedback was requested. Feedback shared in #454 is invalid, and I strongly advise you to seek tutorials as to how public functions have getter function implementations automatically generated that comply with the relevant function signatures of EIPs.

Out of an abundance of caution, I will invite the Sponsor to visit 450 in the validation repository to ensure we are aligned.

[Saptarshi1010]

Hi @alex-ppg , thanks for the quick judging on the codebase , had left some comments on
299
300
304
285

[Saptarshi1010]

Hello @alex-ppg Thanks for those valuable feedback, Left some replies on
#285 299 300

[thebrittfactor]

Please note: PJ QA has now closed. No additional comments should be added unless requested.