feat(examples): added check for overflow/underflow #2874
Conversation
MalekLahbib
requested review from
sw360cab and
piux2
and removed request for
a team
github-actions
bot
added
the
🧾 package/realm
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2874 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 60.95% 60.95%
=======================================
Files 564 564
Lines 75273 75273
=======================================
+ Hits 45884 45886 +2
Misses 26017 26017
+ Partials 3372 3370 -2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ var ( | |||
| ErrInsufficientAllowance = errors.New("insufficient allowance") | |||
| ErrInvalidAddress = errors.New("invalid address") | |||
| ErrCannotTransferToSelf = errors.New("cannot send transfer to self") | |||
| ErrUnderflow = errors.New("the amount is higher than the total supply") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this supposed to be used somewhere? It should be deleted if not.
@moul @deelawn @leohhhn I'm trying to figure out how is it possible to have underflow in Burn function, but for me it seems to be impossible as every function is protected with conditions. I'm doing some research to learn about erc20 known vulnerabilities/issues and figure out how to protect grc20 functions from them. I'm thinking about using "math/overflow' functions (as Add64, Sub64...) to add a protection/check layer. |
Kouteki
added
the
review/triage-pending
| package main | ||
|
|
||
| import ( | ||
| banker "gno.land/p/demo/grc/grc20" | ||
| "gno.land/p/demo/testutils" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| const uint64_max = 1<<64 - 1 | ||
|
|
||
| func main() { | ||
| b := banker.NewBanker("Dummy", "DUMMY", 6) | ||
| var owner = testutils.TestAddress("owner") | ||
| // Mint uint64_max - 1000 tokens for owner | ||
| b.Mint(owner, uint64_max-1000) | ||
| // Try to mint 1001 tokens for owner, should fail because it exceeds the limit | ||
| println(b.Mint(owner, 1001).Error()) | ||
|
|
||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Output: | ||
| // you can't mint more than 1000 tokens |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be honest, filetests should be discouraged. We should strive to write proper tests, that are more Go idiomatic.
They are more readable & more understandable by the broader community, and provide actual type checking on the errors. On the other hand, filetests are supereasy to write, but in the end just provide a println output.
Please write a unit test for this.
Kouteki
removed
the
review/triage-pending
| err := ufmt.Sprintf("you can't mint more than %d tokens", diff) | ||
| return errors.New(err) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This lines can be shortened using ufmt.Errorf.
| err := ufmt.Sprintf("you can't mint more than %d tokens", diff) | |
| return errors.New(err) | |
| return ufmt.Errorf("you can't mint more than %d tokens", diff) |
Contributors' checklist...
BREAKING CHANGE: xxxmessage was included in the description