Assessment reportsPublic findings
Back to Zellic site
↗
Assessment reports>Nukem Loans>Discussion>Utilizing eth-brownie for testing
GeneralOverview
Findings
Critical (3)
High (3)
Medium (2)
Low (1)
DiscussionInitializer called in constructorBorrowing on behalf of the Market contractPotential storage-collision issueSaferERC20 additional checksEIP-712 implementationMarket setters should only be called onceUtilizing eth-brownie for testingCentralizationAMM oracle pricing
Threat ModelWhat are threat models?AbstractSwapper.solAuctions.solCollateral.solCredit.solDebt.solEIP712.solERC20Base.solERC20Permit.solEnFi4626.solLendingStrategy.solMarket.solProxyManager.solRoles.solSaferERC20.solUniswapV2Swapper.sol
Audit ResultsSummary

Utilizing eth-brownie for testing

We encountered a significant bottleneck while utilizing eth-brownie for testing the smart contracts. For that reason, a disproportionate amount of time was spent on debugging issues of the framework itself rather than focusing on testing the actual smart contract functionalities. The intuitive error handling, speed, flexibility, and advanced testing capabilities of Hardhat and Foundry could have expedited our testing phase, delivering more precise insights in a shorter time span.

We recommend opting for either of the two frameworks for future development, as it would drastically lower the time spent on testing and compiling the contracts and would allow for a more efficient development process.

Zellic © 2024Back to top ↑