check#53
Conversation
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
RoeeGross
force-pushed
the
RoeeGross/check-entry
branch
from
4ca5261 to
3031721
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
RoeeGross
force-pushed
the
RoeeGross/check-entry
branch
3 times, most recently
from
65907d5 to
1019993
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
RoeeGross
force-pushed
the
RoeeGross/check-entry
branch
from
91ce8c1 to
96fb022
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
| ) | ||
| .unwrap_syscall(); | ||
| let x: i64 = funding_index.try_into().unwrap(); | ||
| x.into() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Bug: Incorrect Storage Offset and Mutable Access Violation
The get_funding_index function reads the funding_index field using a hardcoded storage offset of 4. The SyntheticTimelyData struct layout suggests offset 3 is correct, potentially returning wrong data. Also, get_synthetic_risk_factor uses .update() for a read operation on asset_risk_factor_tiers, where .at() is typically for immutable access.
1 participant
This change is