Comment and code inconsistencies
During the audit a few inconsistencies were found between what the comments say and what the implemented code actually did.\\nSubject Type Agency for Scanner Subjects\\nIn the `SubjectTypeValidator`, the comment says that the `SCANNER_SUBJECT` is of type `DIRECT` agency type, i.e. it can be directly staked on by multiple different stakers. However, we found a difference in the implementation, where the concerned subject is defined as type `MANAGED` agency type, which says that it cannot be staked on directly; instead it's a delegated type and the allocation is supposed to be managed by its manager.\\n```\\n\\* - SCANNER\\_SUBJECT --> DIRECT\\n```\\n\\n```\\n} else if (subjectType == SCANNER\\_SUBJECT) {\\n    return SubjectStakeAgency.MANAGED;\\n```\\n\\nDispatch refers to ERC721 tokens as ERC1155\\nOne of the comments describing the functionality to `link` and `unlink` agents and scanners refers to them as ERC1155 tokens, when in reality they are ERC721.\\n```\\n/\\*\\*\\n \\* @notice Assigns the job of running an agent to a scanner.\\n \\* @dev currently only allowed for DISPATCHER\\_ROLE (Assigner software).\\n \\* @dev emits Link(agentId, scannerId, true) event.\\n \\* @param agentId ERC1155 token id of the agent.\\n \\* @param scannerId ERC1155 token id of the scanner.\\n \\*/\\n```\\n\\nNodeRunnerRegistryCore comment that implies the reverse of what happens\\nA comment describing a helper function that returns address for a given scanner ID describes the opposite behavior. It is the same comment for the function just above that actually does what the comment says.\\n```\\n/// Converts scanner address to uint256 for FortaStaking Token Id.\\nfunction scannerIdToAddress(uint256 scannerId) public pure returns (address) {\\n    return address(uint160(scannerId));\\n}\\n```\\n\\nScannerToNodeRunnerMigration comment that says that no NodeRunner tokens must be owned\\nFor the migration from Scanners to NodeRunners, a comment in the beginning of the file implies that for the system to work correctly, there must be no NodeRunner tokens owned prior to migration. After a conversation with the Forta Foundation team, it appears that this was an early design choice that is no longer relevant.\\n```\\n\\* @param nodeRunnerId If set as 0, a new NodeRunnerRegistry ERC721 will be minted to nodeRunner (but it must not own any prior),\\n```\\n\\n```\\n\\* @param nodeRunnerId If set as 0, a new NodeRunnerRegistry ERC721 will be minted to nodeRunner (but it must not own any prior),\\n```\\n
Verify the operational logic and fix either the concerned comments or defined logic as per the need.
```\\n\\* - SCANNER\\_SUBJECT --> DIRECT\\n```\\n