F-2025-0012·code-quality

Identical error messages for different validation checks leads to reduced debugging clarity

Fixednftstakingeip-712
TL;DR

Two distinct preconditions in _removeFromClaimQueue revert with the same Invalid Claim request message, making it hard to tell which check failed without inspecting the trace.

Severity
INFO
Impact
LOW
Likelihood
LOW
Method
MManual review
CAT.
Complexity
LOW
Exploitability
LOW
02Section · Description

Description

In the _removeFromClaimQueue function of the GenesisLicenseStaking contract, two different validation checks use the exact same error message:

solidity
require($._claimQueueIds.contains(index_), "Invalid Claim request");
require(!$._fulfilledClaimIds.contains(index_), "Invalid Claim request");

These checks validate different conditions:

  1. The first check verifies that the claim exists in the active queue.
  2. The second check verifies that the claim has not already been fulfilled.

Using identical error messages for different failure conditions makes it difficult to diagnose issues during development, testing, and production. When a transaction reverts with "Invalid Claim request", it's impossible to determine which specific validation failed without examining the transaction trace or debugging the code.

03Section · Recommendation

Recommendation

Use distinct, descriptive error messages for each validation check to improve debugging and error handling:

solidity
require($._claimQueueIds.contains(index_), "Claim not found in active queue");
require(!$._fulfilledClaimIds.contains(index_), "Claim already fulfilled");
Status
Fixed
F-2025-0012

oog
zealynx

Smart Contract Security Digest

Monthly exploit breakdowns, audit checklists, and DeFi security research — straight to your inbox

© 2026 Zealynx