This is directly related to my previous issue, although now I have more specifics and therefore I'm writing a new question!
I was handed a project, and I've installed all the dependencies with npm ci, which should coincide exactly with what the package-lock.json says.
Although, I get compiling errors with an OpenZeppelin contract and a GSN contract.
When looking at the deployed contract, I can see that the code indeed is different and coincides with what the compiler is complaining about;
OpenZeppelin/Context.sol (Deployed)
abstract contract Context {
function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address payable) {
return payable(msg.sender);
}
...
OpenZeppelin/Context.sol (local)
abstract contract Context {
function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address) {
return msg.sender;
}
...
Difference> payable(msg.sender), which is what my compiler is complaining about in two places (once in GSN contract BaseRelayRecipient too).
So... as the versions for both OpenZeppelin and GSN are correct according to my node_modules and the package.json;
"#opengsn/contracts": "^2.2.2",
"#openzeppelin/contracts": "^4.1.0",
Is it the compiler which is supposed to... fix the payable part...? Or... what am I missing, assuming my local code is indeed what was deployed (which I'm 99% of).
Related
I want to implement a burn feature in my ERC721 contract in Solidity. To do so, I have imported the function burn from ERC721Burnable.sol.
Since I have imported it I get the following error:
"Derived contract must override function _beforeTokenTransfer".
The same goes with supportsInterface function.
I did override both of them as you can see below. It works but I would like to understand why do I have to do that?
function _beforeTokenTransfer(
address from,
address to,
uint256 tokenId
) internal virtual override(ERC721, ERC721Enumerable) {
super._beforeTokenTransfer(from, to, tokenId);
}
function supportsInterface(bytes4 interfaceId)
public
view
virtual
override(ERC721, ERC721Enumerable)
returns (bool)
{
return super.supportsInterface(interfaceId);
}
I checked Openzeppelin repo, _beforeTokenTransfer is called inside _burn function. At first, I thought it was the main reason but the fact is that _beforeTokenTransfer is also called inside mint and I did not have that error before.
I have no idea why I have to override supportsInterface.
Thanks
ERC721Burnable inherits from two contracts:
abstract contract ERC721Burnable is Context, ERC721 {}
ERC721.sol contract has _beforeTokenTransfer and _afterTokenTransfer unimplemeted functions. you have to implement those in your contract.
from this github issue
ERC721Enumerable and ERC721Burnable both override the
_beforeTokenTransfer and supportsInterface functions. Solidity requires you to "fix" that overriding conflict. If we were able to
address that in our contract we would, but its a solidity requirement
that the child contract explicitly resolves this.
Looks like you 2 of contracts are conflicting inhering supportsInterface
I am new to solidity, but checking through a specific contract I found the following line of code in the IERC20 declaration:
IERC20 public "TOKEN NAME" = IERC20("THE ADDRESS OF ANOTHER CONTRACT");
This code was found in a contract that is effectively a fork of another project, but the developers say they are unrelated. Of course, people are just FOMO into the token - I know this forum here is not for this type of discussion so I'll abstain from the same.
However, from a solidity coding perspective, why would one write this line of code directly referencing another contract address (the forked address) when making the IERC20 declaration - what does this do, is there a purpose to this?
It seems to me that this is easier and more reliable. Alternatively, you can pass this address in constructor parameters, or provide a special method to set it.
The IERC20 is an interface that defines expected functions arguments and return values.
It helps validating whether the caller is passing correct data types, amount of arguments, and helps parsing the returned data to expected types.
Let's show it on a very simple interface
interface IGame {
function play(uint256 randomNumber) returns (bool won);
}
Elsewhere in your contract, you define a variable that uses this interface
IGame game = Game("0xthe_game_address");
You can then directly call the other contract's methods defined in the interface and pass the return values to your variables.
bool didIWin = game.play(1);
The call would fail if the game contract didn't have the play method or didn't return any value (plus in few other cases).
As for why is the address hardcoded, it's probably just to simplify the development as Mad Jackal already said in their answer.
One more plausible reason in some cases is to gain more trust by showing users that the contract admins are not able to cheat you by changing the destination address (possibly to a contract made by them doing whatever they want).
Edit: If the another contract's address is really unrelated and useless (meaning, the fork is not calling it), it's probably just a human error and the developer forgot to remove it.
When I deploy the below smart contract, the variable manager has the address 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000. It is only after I call the constructor (Lottery()) that the variable manager has an address that matches the account it is deployed by.
Why is my constructor not called automatically?
pragma solidity ^0.4.17;
contract Lottery {
address public manager;
function Lottery() public {
manager = msg.sender;
}
}
Your constructor should be called automatically.
I used Remix (https://remix.ethereum.org) with compiler version 0.4.17 and then deployed and manager was set to the deployment address as expected.
The issue you are experiencing would happen if the contract name and the constructor had different names, so the function was no longer a constructor.
Solidity 0.4.22 changed to use constructor instead of the contract name to avoid these type of bugs:
https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/releases/tag/v0.4.22
Constructors should now be defined using constructor(uint arg1, uint arg2) { ... } to make them stand out and avoid bugs when contracts are renamed but not their constructors.
I would suggest you look at using a later version of Solidity 0.5.x.
I have been attempting to deploy a contract using the Truffle framework, I have recently been testing these contracts on the development network.
My contract was very large and when I attempted to deploy it to a test net, I was instructed to split it up so that the contract wouldn't exceed the gas limit. Although, bearing in mind this contract did deploy onto the development network with the default gas limit.
So I took out parts of the contract and derived another contract from the base and added the deleted sections in there. I attempted to deploy it to the development network in order to test it again, I now get the error:
'Error: The contract code couldn't be stored, please check your gas amount.'
So the steps I took was to:
Change my gasLimit to 100,000,000 which didn't solve it
Check to see if my contract is 'abstract'
My understanding of this is that a contract is abstract if it or its
parent has any functions without an implementation. Mine don't.
I then deleted all of the code other than the constructor from the
derived contract and I still get this error
I deleted the file and the deployment worked with just my base contract as before, therefore the parent contract must not have any non-implemented functions AND it still doesn't work when I attempt to derive an empty contract from it (making sure nothing was abstract in the derived contract).
I then split my migration files up so that the migrations happen
separately, still no luck.
My parent contract is around 300 lines long so no point posting it all in here - I know some people will say 'it may just be too large' however, it deployed when it was 500 lines long on the dev network and now it is only 250 lines long with a deriving contract of 275 lines long, it does not deploy.
The error:
Running migration: 2_deploy_contracts.js
Replacing ERC20Token...
... 0xcae613274de1aa278e7ae5d1239f43445132a417d98765a4f227ea2439c9e4fc
ERC20Token: 0xeec918d74c746167564401103096d45bbd494b74
Replacing Crowdsale...
... 0x0ffc7291d84289c1391a81ed9f76d1e165285e3a3eadc065732aa288ea049b3a
Crowdsale: 0x0d8cc4b8d15d4c3ef1d70af0071376fb26b5669b
Saving successful migration to network...
... 0x7f351d76f61f7b801913f59b808688a2567b64933cdfdcf78bb18b0bf4e4ff69
Saving artifacts...
Running migration: 3_more_deployed_contracts.js
Deploying StagedSale...
... 0x216136bb24d317b140a247f10ec4d6791559739111a85932133cd4a66b12a1d9
Error encountered, bailing. Network state unknown. Review successful
transactions manually.
Error: The contract code couldn't be stored, please check your gas
amount.
at Object.callback
(/usr/local/lib/node_modules/truffle/build/cli.bundled.js:329221:46)
at /usr/local/lib/node_modules/truffle/build/cli.bundled.js:39618:25
at /usr/local/lib/node_modules/truffle/build/cli.bundled.js:331159:9
at /usr/local/lib/node_modules/truffle/build/cli.bundled.js:175492:11
at /usr/local/lib/node_modules/truffle/build/cli.bundled.js:314196:9
at XMLHttpRequest.request.onreadystatechange
(/usr/local/lib/node_modules/truffle/build/cli.bundled.js:329855:7)
My base contract is too large to post, and it deploys fine on its own meaning its not abstract.
My derived contract is:
pragma solidity ^0.4.16;
import "./SafeMath.sol";
import "./Crowdsale.sol";
contract StagedSale is Crowdsale {
using SafeMath for uint256;
/*
* Setup the contract and transfer ownership to appropriate beneficiary
*/
function StagedSale
(
uint256 _stage1Duration,
uint256 _stage2Duration
) public {
uint256 stage1duration = _stage1Duration.mul(1 minutes);
uint256 stage2duration = _stage2Duration.mul(1 minutes);
}
My migration file for the derived contract:
var StagedSale = artifacts.require("./StagedSale.sol");
module.exports = function(deployer) {
const stage1Duration = 1;
const stage2Duration = 1;
deployer.deploy(StagedSale, stage1Duration, stage2Duration);
};
I have posted this question here as I fear this may be a common issue with Truffle deployment.
To conclude, I don't believe this has anything to do with the actual gas limits and is instead, failing for some unknown reason and printing this error message anyway.
I've found a fix to this, basically if you are inheriting from a base contract, you must deploy the base contract within the inherited contracts constructor like so:
OLD VERSION:
Simply deployed the base, then deployed the inheriting contract with a reference to 'is Crowdsale' in class name
deployer.deploy(ERC20Token, initialAmount, tokenName, decimalUnits,tokenSymbol).then(function() {
return deployer.deploy(Crowdsale, softCap, hardCap, etherCostOfEachToken, sendFundsTo, toChecksumAddress(ERC20Token.address), durationInMinutes);
});
deployer.deploy(FinalizableSale);
NEW VERSION
Only deploy the inheriting contract and create a new instance of base within that constructor
deployer.deploy(ERC20Token, initialAmount, tokenName, decimalUnits,tokenSymbol).then(function() {
return deployer.deploy(Finalizable, softCap, hardCap, etherCostOfEachToken, sendFundsTo, toChecksumAddress(ERC20Token.address), durationInMinutes);
});
FINALIZABLE CONSTRUCTOR:
function FinalizableSale(uint256 _fundingGoalInEthers, uint256 _fundingLimitInEthers, uint256 _etherCostOfEachToken, address _sendFundsTo, address _tokenAddress, uint256 _durationInMinutes)
Crowdsale(_fundingGoalInEthers, _fundingLimitInEthers, _etherCostOfEachToken, _sendFundsTo, _tokenAddress, _durationInMinutes)
{
//do something
}
NOTE: That the base contract is initialised BEFORE the opening brackets to the constructor function.
I no longer get the 'out of gas' error and my contract runs as before.
Trying to follow the wiki example for go ethereum to create a basic contract:
https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/wiki/Contracts-and-Transactions
Everything seems to work until I get down until the last line:
source = "contract test { function multiply(uint a) returns(uint d) { return a * 7; } }"
contract = eth.compile.solidity(source).test
primaryAddress = eth.accounts[0]
# **Problems start here **
MyContract = eth.contract(abi);
contact = MyContract.new(arg1, arg2, ...,{from: primaryAddress, data: evmCode})
What is the "abi" argument for the eth.contract method? Also, what would I put in the "evmCode" argument? In this particular example, seems like I would put in an integer for "arg1" but not sure what the full example should look like.
The ABI is the interface that your contract exposes. "evmCode" is the Ethereum byte code for your contract.
To work around your problem, go to https://chriseth.github.io/browser-solidity/ and plug your Solidity in. The Bytecode field on the right will give you the value for "evmCode" and Interface will give you the ABI.
You can also copy the snippet from "Web3 deploy" and paste it in your code to deploy your contract.
ABI is basically which is the public facing interface that shows what methods are available to call.
The simplest way to get the abi would be to use https://remix.ethereum.org . just paste in your code and in Contract tab At the bottom of the column you’ll find a link that says Contract details which is basically the ABI json
Conversely you could also use the contracts.Introduction.interface api of web3 to get the abi.
ABI is representation of smart contract that can be read using java script .To read the data from a deployed contract account in etherum , you'll need some extra details like abi.
Steps to get abi of any smart contract:
1.Each contract has contract hash address like this:0x0D8775F648430679A709E98d2b0Cb6250d2887EF
2.Go to etherscan.io and search your contract address hash in search bar and you will get contract.
3.In contract go to code and there you can find this abi
can check this link to find abi
You could try using tools like Etherlime shape or Truffle boxes to have a whole sample project with contract, tests, and usage into the js. From here you could start moving forward.
ABI is Application Binary Interface. A contract when compiled by solidity compiler returns an object with different methods. ABI and Bytecode are basically used methods. ABI is used to interact with your contracts and frontend (if using node) and bytecode is used for deploying to Rinkeby (or any Ethereum network).
For example:
Contract is:
pragma solidity ^0.4.17;
contract Inbox
{
string public message;
function Inbox(string initialMessage) public{
message = initialMessage;
}
function setMessage(string newMessage) public{
message = newMessage;
}
}
Its ABI is:
interface:
[{
"constant":false,"inputs":[{
"name":"newMessage","type":"string"
}]
,"name":"setMessage","outputs":[],"payable":false,"stateMutability":"nonpayable","type":"function"
}
,{
"constant":true,"inputs":[],"name":"message","outputs":[{
"name":"","type":"string"
}]
,"payable":false,"stateMutability":"view","type":"function"
}
,{
"inputs":[{
"name":"initialMessage","type":"string"
}]
,"payable":false,"stateMutability":"nonpayable","type":"constructor"
}]
This is returned after compiling the contract. You can see it consists of methods used in our contract.