You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While testing our stableswap CFMMs (both two-asset and multi), I noticed that given their complexity it is possible for certain really weird inputs to get passed into the solvers that go completely uncaught. Both for security reasons and for more time-effective testing/bug squashing, I think we should implement validity checks for inputs to (and outputs of) the CFMM solvers.
Suggested Design
Ensure invalid inputs are caught (e.g. negative reserve values or inputs)
Acceptance Criteria
New checks are tested & existing tests pass
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Background
While testing our stableswap CFMMs (both two-asset and multi), I noticed that given their complexity it is possible for certain really weird inputs to get passed into the solvers that go completely uncaught. Both for security reasons and for more time-effective testing/bug squashing, I think we should implement validity checks for inputs to (and outputs of) the CFMM solvers.
Suggested Design
Acceptance Criteria
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: