Min deployment amount enforcement #150
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Brandon Iles <brandon@fragments.org>
Good catch. Updating to check the underlying amounts tranched .. |
aalavandhan
force-pushed
the
min-undeployed
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1b6b102 to
4a39197
Compare
aalavandhan
force-pushed
the
min-undeployed
branch
from
4a39197 to
a2fcdce
Compare
| revert NoDeployment(); | ||
| (uint256 deployedAmt, TrancheData memory td) = _tranche(perp.getDepositBond()); | ||
| uint256 perpsRolledOver = _rollover(perp, td); | ||
| if (deployedAmt <= minDeploymentAmt || perpsRolledOver <= 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we still need to check perpsRolledOver <= 0?
I think this would only be the case if we roll over a small enough dust amount of underlying such that perps rounds to 0. Would we still want to revert in that case? I think we'd want it to go through.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not having this check, opens up a grief attack when external callers can just tranche the underlying and the batch job has to pay for the gas to untranche (and or retranche into a new bond).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, nice catch. Basically enforces that we only tranche the underlying if it can immediately be used for rotations.
Might be worth a code comment
Co-authored-by: Brandon Iles <brandon@fragments.org>
| revert NoDeployment(); | ||
| (uint256 deployedAmt, TrancheData memory td) = _tranche(perp.getDepositBond()); | ||
| uint256 perpsRolledOver = _rollover(perp, td); | ||
| if (deployedAmt <= minDeploymentAmt || perpsRolledOver <= 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, nice catch. Basically enforces that we only tranche the underlying if it can immediately be used for rotations.
Might be worth a code comment
recoverAndRedeployminDeploymentAmtparam