Minor informational changes in smart contracts #954
Comments
|
Thanks! We've actually noted something similar and started working on a https://github.com/safe-global/safe-smart-account/tree/doc/fixes branch to address inconsistencies in the developer documentation. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Description
It might is unnecessary for most of the developers, but consistency in smart contracts and specifically in comments could improve the code quality, in this issue I propose some improvements on the code consistency that do not affect the logic of the smart contracts but it affects the developer experience integrating or interacting with them.
Additional context
SimulateTxAccessor.sol: the 'returndata' should be 'returnData' to follow the consistency of the block comment.
FallbackManager.sol: missing '*' in comment block is not part of the pattern that set of contracts follow in the rest of the repository.
FallbackManager.sol: this line surpass the limit of line length that the other comments follow in the rest of the smart contracts.
ISafe.sol: wrong position for '@notice' statement is not part of the pattern that set of contracts follow in the rest of the repository.
Executor.sol, ModuleManager.sol and OwnerManager.sol: these contracts don't have the common line jump between the pragma statement and the imports, affecting the readability of the smart contract.
Similar to these cases are other improvements that can be considered informational, we could collect them in this issue and address them in a future PR.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: