Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

v1.5 #17

Merged
merged 82 commits into from
Nov 27, 2023
Merged

v1.5 #17

merged 82 commits into from
Nov 27, 2023

Conversation

zjb0807
Copy link
Contributor

@zjb0807 zjb0807 commented Oct 7, 2023

I created v1.0 branch from main branch.

contracts/StableAsset.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/TapETH.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/TapETH.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/TapETH.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 42 to 43
_mint(msg.sender, _wtapETHAmount);
tapETH.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), _tapETHAmount);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
_mint(msg.sender, _wtapETHAmount);
tapETH.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), _tapETHAmount);
tapETH.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), _tapETHAmount);
_mint(msg.sender, _wtapETHAmount);

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in term of security pattern , we should have
_mint(msg.sender, _wtapETHAmount);
tapETH.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), _tapETHAmount);

contracts/TapETH.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
* @notice This function allows to rebase TapETH by increasing his total supply
* from the current stableSwap pool by the staking rewards and the swap fee.
*/
function rebase() external returns (uint256) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure why do we even need this method. The pool collects yield basically on every transaction.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the case where we don't have activity on Tapio ( no user transactions) and we continuel receiving staking rewards, we need to be able to rebase.

contracts/contracts/Lock.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/scripts/deploy.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/test/Lock.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contracts/StableAssetApplication.sol Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Nov 19, 2023

Codecov Report

Attention: 715 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (d277e2e) 0.52% compared to head (9858361) 0.45%.

Files Patch % Lines
contracts/StableAsset.sol 1.20% 491 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
contracts/TapETH.sol 0.00% 152 Missing ⚠️
contracts/StableAssetApplication.sol 0.00% 40 Missing ⚠️
contracts/WTapETH.sol 0.00% 24 Missing ⚠️
contracts/governance/TapioGovernor.sol 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
contracts/reth/RocketTokenExchangeRateProvider.sol 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
contracts/governance/GaugeController.sol 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
contracts/governance/VotingEscrow.sol 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
contracts/misc/ConstantExchangeRateProvider.sol 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##            main     #17      +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage   0.52%   0.45%   -0.07%     
========================================
  Files         13      14       +1     
  Lines       1343    1524     +181     
  Branches     301     325      +24     
========================================
  Hits           7       7              
- Misses      1335    1516     +181     
  Partials       1       1              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@zjb0807 zjb0807 marked this pull request as ready for review November 20, 2023 01:26
@ukby1234 ukby1234 merged commit 6681e40 into main Nov 27, 2023
1 check passed
@ukby1234 ukby1234 deleted the draft_V1.5 branch November 27, 2023 04:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants