Skip to content

docs: NatSpec inconsistencies and inaccuracies in core contracts #1070

Description

@SovaSlava

Component

Documentation

Describe the suggested feature and problem it solves.

Summary

While reviewing the codebase, I noticed several NatSpec comments that either do not fully reflect the actual contract logic or omit important context.

Below is the list of identified inconsistencies and proposed clarifications:

File / Location Current NatSpec Proposed NatSpec Rationale
src/interfaces/IProtocolFees.sol#L40 This will revert if the contract is unlocked Remove this comment The collectProtocolFees function does not contain any check regarding the state of the pool (locked or unlocked).
src/interfaces/IPoolManager.sol#L111 The only functions callable without an unlocking are initialize and updateDynamicLPFee The only functions callable without an unlocking are initialize, updateDynamicLPFee and sync Function sync() also callable without unlocking.
src/interfaces/IPoolManager.sol#55 The fee collected upon every swap in the pool, denominated in hundredths of a bip The fee collected upon every swap in the pool, denominated in hundredths of a bip, or DYNAMIC_FEE_FLAG if the fee is dynamically set by the hook When a pool uses dynamic fees, the fee parameter in the Initialize event contains the value from the DYNAMIC_FEE_FLAG constant

Additional context.

All proposed modifications are strictly documentation/NatSpec improvements and do not alter any contract logic or interface ABIs.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions