In my smart contract, I have a function that does something (not relevant), but there are two ways I could potentially accept arguments to the function: using a struct, or by encoding the values and simply passing a bytes value like so:
// Only 3 fields for simplicity, but in theory, there could be any arbitrary num. of fields
struct Data {
address user;
uint256 amount;
address receiver;
}
function executeSomething(Data memory data) external returns(bool) {
address user = data.user;
_;
return true;
}
vs
function executeSomething(bytes memory data) external returns(bool) {
address user = (data >> (bytes.length - 160)); // since address is of 160 bytes
_;
return true;
}
In case 1, I'm simply passing a struct, whereas in the second case, I'm passing an argument encoded as bytes memory for which I can extract the argument values by using bitshift tricks.
My question is this:
What are the potential gas savings of these?
Is it more recommended to use a struct (ease of use + sanity purposes)?
Since bytes memory is not of fixed length like bytes32, what is the tipping point in which using a struct makes better sense (gas-savings-wise) than using bytes memory.
Related
As it is now, anyone can call the setMyString function in the FirstContract. I'm trying to restrict access to that function to an instance of SecondContract. But not one specific instance, any contract of type SecondContract should be able to call setMyString.
contract FirstContract{
String public myString;
function setMyString(String memory what) public {
myString=what;
}
}
contract SecondContract{
address owner;
address firstAddress;
FirstContract firstContract;
constructor(address _1st){
owner=msg.sender;
firstAddress=_1st;
firstContract=FirstContract(firstAddress);
}
function callFirst(String memory what){
require(msg.sender==owner);
firstContract.setMyString("hello");
}
}
Solidity currently doesn't have an easy way to validate an address against an interface.
You can check the bytecode, whether it contains the specified signatures (of the public properties and methods). This requires a bit larger scope than a usual StackOverflow answer, so I'm just going to describe the steps instead of writing the code.
First, define the desired list of signatures (1st 4 bytes of keccak256 hash of the name and arguments datatypes) that you're going to be looking for. You can find more info about signatures in my other answers here and here.
An example in the documentation shows how to get any address's (in your case msg.sender) bytecode as bytes (dynamic-length array).
You'll then need to loop through the returned bytes array and search for the 4-byte signatures.
If you find them all, it means that msg.sender "implements the interface". If any of the signatures is missing in the external contract, it means it doesn't implement the interface.
But... I'd really recommend you to rethink your approach to whitelisting. Yes, you'll need to maintain the list and call setIsSecondContract() when a new SecondContract wants to call the setMyString() function for the first time. But it's more gas efficient for all callers of the FirstContract's setMyString() function, as well as easier to write and test the functionality in the first place.
contract FirstContract{
String public myString;
address owner;
mapping (address => bool) isSecondContract;
modifier onlySecondContract {
require(isSecondContract[msg.sender]);
_;
}
modifier onlyOwner {
require(msg.sender == owner);
_;
}
function setIsSecondContract(address _address, bool _value) public onlyOwner {
isSecondContract[_address] = _value;
}
function setMyString(String memory what) public onlySecondContract {
myString=what;
}
}
In order to change the state of the smart contract from front end inputs, wanted to submit string array to a smart contract , key value pair or objects.
Is it possible to use string array as parameter?
No solidity doesn't support arrays of strings as parameter. You would have to serialize and deserialize it in a string yourself to have the desired result but that would be expensive to do in solidity. You can test that on remix if you want. However, on remix the error message says that this function is supported in the experimental ABI encoder but I have never tested that, or how well it works with other libraries, and it is experimental after all.
As seen in below example from solidity document we can send bytes array to constructor
constructor(bytes32[] memory proposalNames) public {
chairperson = msg.sender;
voters[chairperson].weight = 1;
// For each of the provided proposal names,
// create a new proposal object and add it
// to the end of the array.
for (uint i = 0; i < proposalNames.length; i++) {
// `Proposal({...})` creates a temporary
// Proposal object and `proposals.push(...)`
// appends it to the end of `proposals`.
proposals.push(Proposal({
name: proposalNames[i],
voteCount: 0
}));
}
}
If you are trying to send string/Objects data specifically then it's better to separate out the methods and call each methods separately or within each other as currently solidity does not support that (using ABIencodere v2 is exceptional as it is only recommended for development purpose- as per on the date of this answer written)
struct A{
uint date,
B[] b
}
You can separate this out to
struct A{
uint date
}
struct B{
string goods,
uint quantity
}
so now for 1 A you can call N B from your service. Use mapping for binding both(if dependent).
In current situation it's better to design a contract which does not take bulk inputs or give out bulk outputs. However contracts are not for storage of huge data it's for storage of related data which fulfills agreement between parties
I'm learning Solidity Assembly and I'm confused about something. I'm looking at this library called Seriality. Specifically, this function: https://github.com/pouladzade/Seriality/blob/master/src/TypesToBytes.sol#L21
function bytes32ToBytes(uint _offst, bytes32 _input, bytes memory _output) internal pure {
assembly {
mstore(add(_output, _offst), _input)
mstore(add(add(_output, _offst),32), add(_input,32))
}
}
That function bytes32ToBytes takes a bytes32 variable and stores it in a dynamically sized bytes array, starting at the offset passed in.
The thing that confuses me is that it uses the mstore function twice. But the mstore function stores a word, which is 32 bytes, right? So why is it called twice, given that the input is 32 bytes? Wouldn't calling it twice store 2 words, which is 64 bytes?
Thanks!
Solidity arrays are stored by writing out the size of the array to the first storage slot then writing out the data to the subsequent slots.
Knowing that mstore has the following parameters: mstore(START_LOCATION, ITEM_TO_STORE), the first mstore statement is written as follows:
mstore(add(_output, _offst), _input)
Since the first slot of the array points to the size of the array, this statement is setting the size of _output. You should be able to get the same result by replacing it with mstore(add(_output, _offst), 32) (since the size is of _input is static).
The second statement (mstore(add(add(_output, _offst),32), add(_input,32))) is the one that writes the data itself. Here, we are shifting the position of both pointers by 32 bytes (as the first 32 bytes for both arrays are pointing to the size) and storing the value of _input to where the data is stored for _output.
Chances are, _output will already be initialized before calling this method (so the length will already be set), so it will usually be unnecessary. But, it doesn't hurt. Note that a similar implementation making this assumption would look like this:
function test() public pure returns (bytes) {
bytes32 i = "some message";
bytes memory o = new bytes(32); // Initializing this way sets the length to the location "o" points to. This replaces mstore(add(_output, _offst), _input).
bytes32ToBytes(0, i, o);
return o;
}
function bytes32ToBytes(uint _offst, bytes32 _input, bytes memory _output) internal pure {
assembly {
mstore(add(add(_output, _offst),32), add(_input,32))
}
}
Not sure about the intention of the function bytes32ToBytes
If it is turning a bytes32 into a bytes, I think the right implementation should be
pragma solidity ^0.7.0;
contract DecodeEncode {
function test() public pure returns (bytes memory) {
bytes32 i = "some message";
bytes memory o = new bytes(32); // Initializing this way sets the length to the location "o" points to. This replaces mstore(add(_output, _offst), _input).
bytes32ToBytes(0, i, o);
return o;
}
function bytes32ToBytes(uint _offst, bytes32 _input, bytes memory _output) internal pure {
assembly {
mstore(add(_output, _offst), 32) //lineA
mstore(add(add(_output, _offst), 32), _input) //lineB
}
}
}
lineA sets the length of the bytes as 32 bytes
lineB sets the content of the first slot of the bytes as _input
I'm building a game on ethereum as my first project and I'm facing with the storage and gas limits. I would like to store a storage smart contract on the blockchain to be queried after the deployment. I really need to initialize a fixed length array with constant values I insert manually. My situation is the following:
contract A {
...some states variables/modifiers and events......
uint[] public vector = new uint[](162);
vector = [.......1, 2, 3,......];
function A () {
....some code....
ContractB contract = new ContractB(vector);
}
....functions....
}
This code doesn't deploy. Apparently I exceed gas limits on remix. I tried the following:
I split the vector in 10 different vectors and then pass just one of them to the constructor. With this the deploy works.
I really need to have just one single vector because it represents the edges set of a graph where ContractB is the data structure to build a graph. Vectors elements are ordered like this:
vector = [edge1From, edge1To, edge2From, edge2To,.......]
and I got 81 edges (162 entries in the vector).
I tought I can create a setData function that push the values in the vector one by one calling this function after the deployment but this is not my case because I need to have the vector filled before the call
ContractB contract = new ContractB(vector);
Now I can see I have two doubts:
1) Am I wrong trying to pass a vector as parameter in a function call inside the A constructor ?
2) I can see that I can create a double mapping for the edges. Something like
mapping (bool => mapping(uint => uint))
but then I will need multi-key valued mappings (more edges starting from the same point) and I will have the problem to initialize all the mappings at once like I do with the vector?
Why does the contract need to be initialized at construction time?
This should work
pragma solidity ^0.4.2;
contract Graph {
address owner;
struct GraphEdge {
uint128 from;
uint128 to;
}
GraphEdge[] public graph;
bool public initialized = false;
constructor() public {
owner = msg.sender;
}
function addEdge(uint128 edgeFrom, uint128 edgeTo) public {
require(!initialized);
graph.push(GraphEdge({
from: edgeFrom,
to: edgeTo
}));
}
function finalize() public {
require(msg.sender == owner);
initialized = true;
}
}
contract ContractB {
Graph graph;
constructor(address graphAddress) public {
Graph _graph = Graph(graphAddress);
require(_graph.initialized());
graph = _graph;
}
}
If the range of values for you array are small enough, you can save on gas consumption by using a more appropriate size for your uints. Ethereum stores values into 32-bytes slots and you pay 20,000 gas for every slot used. If you are able to use a smaller sized uint (remember, uint is the same as uint256), you'll be able to save on gas usage.
For example, consider the following contract:
pragma solidity ^0.4.19;
contract Test {
uint256[100] big;
uint128[100] small;
function addBig(uint8 index, uint256 num) public {
big[index] = num;
}
function addSmall(uint8 index, uint128 num1, uint128 num2) public {
small[index] = num1;
small[index + 1] = num2;
}
}
Calling addBig() each time with a previously unused index will have an execution cost of a little over 20,000 gas and results in one value being added to an array. Calling addSmall() each time will cost about 26,000, but you're adding 2 elements to the array. Both only use 1 slot of storage. You can get even better results if you can go smaller than uint128.
Another option (depending on if you need to manipulate the array data) is to store your vector off chain. You can use an oracle to retrieve data or store your data in IPFS.
If neither of those options work for your use case, then you'll have to change your data structure and/or use multiple transactions to initialize your array.
Function getBets() gives me the error: error: Failed to decode output: Error: Unsupported or invalid type: tuple. What am I missing?
pragma solidity ^0.4.11;
contract Casino {
struct Bet {
address by;
uint number;
}
address owner;
Bet[] bets;
event BetPlaced(Bet bet);
function Casino() {
owner = msg.sender;
}
function bet(uint number) {
Bet memory bet;
bet.by = msg.sender;
bet.number = number;
bets.push(bet);
BetPlaced(bet);
}
function getBets() constant returns (Bet[]) {
return bets;
}
function getCount() constant returns (uint length) {
return bets.length;
}
}
At the moment if I'm correct you can't return anything except an array of integers as there is no support for returning multi-dimensional data storages;
You can use an experimental library using:
pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
in the place of:
pragma solidity ^0.4.11;
This isn't available on Remix if you're using that at the moment and it's experimental so it may never be part of Solidity source: https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/2948
If you did want to return an array of structs you could convert the whole array to bytes and return the bytes. This would be a bit of an extreme case and I wouldn't advise it.
If you only need to access the method internally and not externally you can pass by storage e.g.
function getBets() internal returns (Bet[] storage _r) {
_v = bets;
}
You may want to switch your struct to another contract. This way you can return an array of addresses. I have found using structs is only useful in storing and retrieving "that" data. Contracts are better to return sets of addresses. Also, I have not used the experimental encoder, so just going off of the current solidity version.