PuppyRaflle Test #172
Unanswered
guyzilberblum
asked this question in
Q&A
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
Hello @guyzilberblum, What you wrote seems like a correct proof of code. That may pass for a |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
Step by step
…On Sun, 5 May 2024 at 18:57 EngrPips ***@***.***> wrote:
Hello @guyzilberblum <https://github.com/guyzilberblum>, What you wrote
seems like a correct proof of code. That may pass for a Gas Optimization
report. It's interesting that you are crafting these tests yourself now.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#172 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BHZOBILZYPOWEDGFJZ7NIWTZAZJINAVCNFSM6AAAAABHHSOK5CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4TGMRQGYZTE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
<Cyfrin/security-and-auditing-full-course-s23/repo-discussions/172/comments/9320632
@github.com>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I found a problem in the puppy raflle contract , at the refund function they dont delete the player they just make him the address(0)
my argument is that for iterating the array without deleting the players at the refund function will be gas costly so i wanted to wrtie a test case for that i had hard time doing that so i manage to log the gas for itterating 100 players and the log the gas for deleting them my qeastion is this the write proof to write ? this is the proof
"""
"""
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions