Added rule burnBatchOnEmptyArraysChangesNothing (passing)
This commit is contained in:
@ -95,18 +95,6 @@ rule sequentialBurnsEquivalentToSingleBurnOfSum {
|
||||
"Sequential burns must be equivalent to a burn of their sum";
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// This rule not needed (because multipleTokenBurnBurnBatchEquivalence)
|
||||
/// Unimplemented rule to verify additivty of burnBatch.
|
||||
/// Using only burnBatch, possible approach:
|
||||
/// Token with first and second burn amounts
|
||||
/// Round one two sequential burns in separate transactions
|
||||
/// Round two two sequential burns in the same transaction
|
||||
/// Round three one burn of sum
|
||||
rule sequentialBatchBurnsEquivalentToSingleBurnBatchOfSum { // TODO implement rule or remove
|
||||
assert false,
|
||||
"TODO just a placeholder that should always show up until rule is implemented";
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// The result of burning a single token must be equivalent whether done via
|
||||
/// burn or burnBatch.
|
||||
rule singleTokenBurnBurnBatchEquivalence {
|
||||
@ -145,8 +133,6 @@ rule multipleTokenBurnBurnBatchEquivalence {
|
||||
uint256 burnAmountA; uint256 burnAmountB; uint256 burnAmountC;
|
||||
uint256[] tokens; uint256[] burnAmounts;
|
||||
|
||||
// require tokenA != tokenB; require tokenB != tokenC; require tokenC != tokenA;
|
||||
|
||||
mathint startingBalanceA = balanceOf(holder, tokenA);
|
||||
mathint startingBalanceB = balanceOf(holder, tokenB);
|
||||
mathint startingBalanceC = balanceOf(holder, tokenC);
|
||||
@ -176,13 +162,30 @@ rule multipleTokenBurnBurnBatchEquivalence {
|
||||
"Burning multiple tokens via burn or burnBatch must be equivalent";
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// possible rule:
|
||||
/// like singleTokenBurnBurnBatchEquivalence but for no operation
|
||||
/// i.e. burnBatch on empty arrays does nothing
|
||||
/// If passed empty token and burn amount arrays, burnBatch must not change
|
||||
/// token balances or address permissions.
|
||||
rule burnBatchOnEmptyArraysChangesNothing {
|
||||
env e;
|
||||
|
||||
/// skip frontrunning because
|
||||
/// (1) needing to filter a ton of rules for f
|
||||
/// (2) frontrunning before burning isn't a likely issue
|
||||
address holder; uint256 token;
|
||||
address nonHolderA; address nonHolderB;
|
||||
uint256 startingBalance = balanceOf(holder, token);
|
||||
bool startingPermissionNonHolderA = isApprovedForAll(holder, nonHolderA);
|
||||
bool startingPermissionNonHolderB = isApprovedForAll(holder, nonHolderB);
|
||||
uint256[] noTokens; uint256[] noBurnAmounts;
|
||||
require noTokens.length == 0; require noBurnAmounts.length == 0;
|
||||
|
||||
burnBatch(e, holder, noTokens, noBurnAmounts);
|
||||
uint256 endingBalance = balanceOf(holder, token);
|
||||
bool endingPermissionNonHolderA = isApprovedForAll(holder, nonHolderA);
|
||||
bool endingPermissionNonHolderB = isApprovedForAll(holder, nonHolderB);
|
||||
|
||||
assert startingBalance == endingBalance,
|
||||
"burnBatch must not change token balances if passed empty arrays";
|
||||
assert startingPermissionNonHolderA == endingPermissionNonHolderA
|
||||
&& startingPermissionNonHolderB == endingPermissionNonHolderB,
|
||||
"burnBatch must not change account permissions if passed empty arrays";
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// This rule should always fail.
|
||||
rule sanity {
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user