added tests for protocol fees with aqua; and for xyc swap with aqua

[Sunnesoft]

No description provided.

[claude]

Claude finished @Sunnesoft's task —— View job

---

Code Review for PR #19: Protocol Fees with Aqua and XYC Swap Tests

Review Tasks:

• Check for CLAUDE.md and repo guidelines
• Read and analyze all changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Identify potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Check test coverage and quality

Summary

This PR adds comprehensive test suites for protocol fees with Aqua and XYC (constant product) swap functionality. The implementation is well-structured, follows best practices, and includes thorough test coverage.

Code Quality and Best Practices ✅

Strengths:

• Excellent test organization with clear sections and descriptive test names
• Good use of helper functions to reduce code duplication (_makerSetup, _swapProgram, _checkInvariantNeverDecreases)
• Comprehensive documentation with clear comments explaining test purpose
• Consistent coding style and proper use of Solidity conventions
• Proper license headers and copyright notices

Minor Observations:

• Console import in XYCSwapAqua.t.sol:13 is not used and could be removed
• Different SPDX license identifiers between files (SwapVM-1.1 vs ARSL-1.0-Audit) - ensure this is intentional

Potential Bugs or Issues 🔍

1. Typo in variable name at test/ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol:160:

   (uint256 protocolRecipientBalanceAAfter, uint256 protocolRecipientBalanceBBAfter) = getProtocolRecipientBalances();

   Should be protocolRecipientBalanceBAfter (extra 'B' in the variable name)

2. Potential assertion issue at test/ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol:103:

   assertApproxEqAbs(makerBalanceAAfter - makerBalanceABefore, amountInExpected, 1, "Maker received correct amountIn");

   The assertion message says "Maker received" but the maker is actually spending tokens, not receiving them

Performance Considerations ⚡

• Test execution is well-optimized with proper use of vm cheatcodes
• The rounding accumulation tests (test_Aqua_XYC_ExactIn_NoRoundingAccumulation) run 1000 iterations which could be time-consuming but is necessary for thorough testing
• Good use of isolated test cases to avoid state pollution between tests

Security Concerns 🔒

Positive security practices observed:

• Protocol fee calculations properly handle basis points (BPS) conversions
• Overflow protection tests ensure arithmetic operations fail gracefully
• Arbitrage protection tests verify that round-trip swaps always result in a loss
• K invariant tests ensure the constant product never decreases
• Rounding always favors the protocol/LP

No critical security issues identified - The tests properly validate economic invariants and edge cases.

Test Coverage 📊

Excellent coverage across multiple dimensions:

1. Protocol Fee Tests:

   • ExactIn and ExactOut swaps with protocol fees
   • Protocol fees combined with flat fees (in/out)
   • Consistency between exactIn and exactOut quotes
   • Proper fee recipient balance updates

2. XYC Swap Tests:

   • Balance consistency after swaps
   • Arbitrage protection (all swap combinations)
   • K invariant preservation
   • Swap rate vs spot price validation
   • Economic properties (rounding, split vs single swap)
   • Edge cases (dust amounts, max amounts, overflow)
   • Rounding error accumulation protection

Recommendations 💡

1. Fix the typo in test/ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol:160
2. Consider removing the unused console import in XYCSwapAqua.t.sol
3. Add a test for protocol fee edge cases (e.g., 100% protocol fee, though this might be prevented at contract level)
4. Consider adding tests for multiple consecutive swaps with protocol fees to ensure fee accounting remains correct

Conclusion

This is a high-quality PR with comprehensive test coverage. The code is well-written, follows best practices, and thoroughly tests critical economic invariants and edge cases. The minor issues identified are easily addressable and don't impact the overall quality of the submission.

[claude]

Claude finished @Sunnesoft's task —— View job

---

Code Review for PR #19: Protocol Fees with Aqua and XYC Swap Tests

Review Tasks:

• Check for CLAUDE.md and repository guidelines
• Read and analyze all changed files
• Review code quality and best practices
• Identify potential bugs or issues
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Check test coverage and quality
• Post comprehensive review feedback

Summary

This PR adds comprehensive test suites for protocol fees with Aqua and XYC (constant product) swap functionality. The implementation is well-structured, follows best practices, and includes thorough test coverage for critical economic invariants and edge cases.

Code Quality and Best Practices ✅

Strengths:

• Excellent test organization with clear sections and descriptive test names
• Good use of helper functions to reduce code duplication (_makerSetup, _swapProgram, _checkInvariantNeverDecreases)
• Comprehensive documentation with clear comments explaining test purpose and behavior
• Consistent coding style and proper use of Solidity conventions
• Proper license headers and copyright notices

Minor Observations:

• Unused import in XYCSwapAqua.t.sol:13: The console import is not used and could be removed
• Different SPDX license identifiers between files (SwapVM-1.1 vs ARSL-1.0-Audit) - ensure this is intentional

Potential Bugs or Issues 🔍

1. Typo in variable name at test/ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol:160:

   (uint256 protocolRecipientBalanceAAfter, uint256 protocolRecipientBalanceBBAfter) = getProtocolRecipientBalances();

   Should be protocolRecipientBalanceBAfter (extra 'B' in the variable name)

2. Potentially misleading assertion message at test/ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol:103:

   assertApproxEqAbs(makerBalanceAAfter - makerBalanceABefore, amountInExpected, 1, "Maker received correct amountIn");

   The assertion message says "Maker received" but in exactOut swaps, the maker is actually providing tokens (balance increases from taker's input)

Performance Considerations ⚡

• Test execution is well-optimized with proper use of vm cheatcodes
• The rounding accumulation tests (test_Aqua_XYC_ExactIn_NoRoundingAccumulation) run 1000 iterations (gas: 99,978,290) which is thorough but time-consuming
• Good use of isolated test cases to avoid state pollution between tests
• Gas snapshots show reasonable gas usage for all test scenarios

Security Concerns 🔒

Positive security practices observed:

• Protocol fee calculations properly handle basis points (BPS) conversions
• Overflow protection tests ensure arithmetic operations fail gracefully
• Arbitrage protection tests verify that round-trip swaps always result in a loss, preventing value extraction
• K invariant tests ensure the constant product never decreases
• Rounding always favors the protocol/LP, preventing dust attacks
• Tests verify that fees cannot exceed 100% (would cause reverts)

No critical security issues identified - The tests properly validate economic invariants and edge cases.

Test Coverage 📊

Excellent coverage across multiple dimensions:

1. Protocol Fee Tests (ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol):

   • ExactIn and ExactOut swaps with protocol fees
   • Protocol fees combined with flat fees (in/out)
   • Consistency between exactIn and exactOut quotes
   • Proper fee recipient balance updates

2. XYC Swap Tests (XYCSwapAqua.t.sol):

   • Balance consistency after swaps
   • Arbitrage protection (all 4 swap combinations: In→Out, Out→In, In→In, Out→Out)
   • K invariant preservation with dust, normal, and max amounts
   • Swap rate vs spot price validation
   • Economic properties (rounding, split vs single swap, price impact)
   • Edge cases (dust amounts, max amounts, overflow)
   • Rounding error accumulation protection (1000 iterations)

Recommendations 💡

1. Fix the typo in test/ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol:160
2. Remove the unused console import in XYCSwapAqua.t.sol:13
3. Clarify the assertion message in test/ProtocolFeeAqua.t.sol:103
4. Consider adding a test for protocol fee edge case where fee is very close to 100% (e.g., 99.99%)
5. Consider parameterizing the iteration count in accumulation tests for faster CI runs

Conclusion

This is a high-quality PR with comprehensive test coverage. The code is well-written, follows best practices, and thoroughly tests critical economic invariants and edge cases. The minor issues identified are easily addressable and don't impact the overall quality of the submission. The test suite provides strong confidence in the correctness of the protocol fee and XYC swap implementations.