Check out the Issue Explorer
Looking to fund some work? You can submit a new Funded Issue here.
Related to #6 & #31
The `using .. for` syntax is currently not considered in any of the commands (pertinent ones being `graph` and `ftrace`) and this makes it so that member accesses in elementary types (like when `using SafeMath for uint256`) look like external calls to unspecified contracts.
While this is was not too bad in `graph` until now, the problem is even bigger in `ftrace`, that crashes on some instances of this problem.
* Build the functionality to be easily applied cross-command.
* Avoid a pitfall: make sure that member addresses being analyzed this way do not span across multiple contracts even if in the same file.
* Even though there is absolutely no test framework, if you start creating tests for these I'll send you LOVE tokens ❤️ 😂
* If you already prepare this to accommodate changes for solc's versions ^0.5.0 changes to structs/library syntax I'll send you some of my ETH. 😄 (v. https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/4029)