I'm new to web3 development, trying to signing transaction over web3py and got an exception ABIFunctionNotFound when I try to create transfer via contract.functions.transfer() function for USDC token on BSC network.
web3.exceptions.ABIFunctionNotFound: ("The function 'transfer' was not found in this contract's abi. ", 'Are you sure you provided the correct contract abi?')
Token ABI
[{"inputs":[{"internalType":"address","name":"logic","type":"address"},{"internalType":"address","name":"admin","type":"address"},{"internalType":"bytes","name":"data","type":"bytes"}],"stateMutability":"nonpayable","type":"constructor"},{"anonymous":false,"inputs":[{"indexed":false,"internalType":"address","name":"previousAdmin","type":"address"},{"indexed":false,"internalType":"address","name":"newAdmin","type":"address"}],"name":"AdminChanged","type":"event"},{"anonymous":false,"inputs":[{"indexed":true,"internalType":"address","name":"implementation","type":"address"}],"name":"Upgraded","type":"event"},{"stateMutability":"payable","type":"fallback"},{"inputs":[],"name":"admin","outputs":[{"internalType":"address","name":"","type":"address"}],"stateMutability":"nonpayable","type":"function"},{"inputs":[{"internalType":"address","name":"newAdmin","type":"address"}],"name":"changeAdmin","outputs":[],"stateMutability":"nonpayable","type":"function"},{"inputs":[],"name":"implementation","outputs":[{"internalType":"address","name":"","type":"address"}],"stateMutability":"nonpayable","type":"function"},{"inputs":[{"internalType":"address","name":"newImplementation","type":"address"}],"name":"upgradeTo","outputs":[],"stateMutability":"nonpayable","type":"function"},{"inputs":[{"internalType":"address","name":"newImplementation","type":"address"},{"internalType":"bytes","name":"data","type":"bytes"}],"name":"upgradeToAndCall","outputs":[],"stateMutability":"payable","type":"function"},{"stateMutability":"payable","type":"receive"}]
If there are no function transfer in this contact, how can I transfer USDC to another wallet?
As I guessed in the comment, you're passing the ABI of the proxy contract.
The solution is simple: Pass the ABI of the implementation contract (you can see it linked from the Proxy contract on BSCScan) but keep the proxy address.
This rule applies to all other proxy contracts if you encounter this issue another time. Always pass the proxy address and the implementation ABI.
Related
When I decoded and checked a transaction's log about the polygon contract (0x0000000000000000000000000000000000001010), I found the signature like "LogFeeTransfer(address,address,address,uint256,uint256,uint256,uint256,uint256)".
However I can't find that polygon contract emits this event.
What's this event for and where is used in the contract?
Thank you.
I searched the contract source code on polygonscan for "emit LogFeeContract".
This address on Polygon most likely holds a precompiled contract - which is usually not written in Solidity but in language of the client software (Golang, JS, ...).
My guess is that it's just a Solidity representation of the original Golang (or any other) code, so that it doesn't confuse users that there is no contract on this address on PolygonScan even though this address is publicly known as the native token address.
The Golang implementation can also emit events, as it's literally part of the node client software.
I wasn't able to find any specific implementation in other language apart from Solidity, but my answer is based on the fact that the ...1010 address is within the range of reserved addresses for precompiled contracts on Ethereum - https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1352. Even though Polygon might technically ignore this EIP.
More info on precompiles: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/search?q=precompiled
I am facing an odd case where I am calling a view method in a smart contract with the correct address and ABI but am getting a reversion from the contract itself when it's being called through a library such as web3 from a frontend web application.
However, when trying on remix for example, with the same contract and method and parameters and address, the method is working.
Can anyone provide some insight into this?
Had to use .call({from: userAddress}) instead of just .call()
I have a Solidity smart contract which relies on Chainlink oracles for external data that has a lot of functionality code that does not need to be replicated on a per contract basis but does change the state of the contract instance, which is why I decided the proxy pattern using delegate calls makes the most sense. In the proxy pattern I only have to deploy the byte-code for my contracts functions once, and then all other instances of my contract will just delegate call to the implementation contract, and the only new information added to the block chain will be instance fields of that specific contract.
I am able to get an implementation contract deployed and point my deployed proxy to its functions, but then when I call the lock function on the proxy I fail the check require(owner == msg.sender,"Owner only") which doesnt make sense since delegate calls are supposed to pass msg.sender and I set the owner field to msg.sender in the proxy's constructor. If I remove the require, I can call the function without a revert but the locked and debugAddr fields are unchanged, even though the lock function should change them(I thought delegate call was executed in the context of the caller?). Does anyone know what is wrong with my proxy and implementation contracts? I can guess it is to do with memory layouts or the assembly im using to do delegate calls, but I am not yet on the level where I can use my googling skills to find out what is wrong, so if someone can spot where my proxy contract is incorrect/badly formatted please let me know.
Thanks,
Ben
Lock function code snippet
//Locks in the contract, buyer should have already provided data scientist an upload only API key and their model ID
function lock() public returns (bool success)
{
debugAddr = msg.sender;
uint tempStamp = now;
//THIS IS THE REQUIRE THAT FAILS WHEN IT SHOULDNT WHEN I UNCOMMENT THIS AND DEPLOY/RUN
require(msg.sender == owner, "Only owner can lock contract.");
//require(!locked, "Cannot lock contract that is already locked.");
//require(buyer != address(0),"No buyer to lock.");
//require(bytes(buyerModelName).length != 0,"No buyerModelName to lock.");
//require((tempStamp - startTimestamp) < 158400,"Cannot lock contract that was entered by buyer over 44 hours ago.");
//require((getWeekday(tempStamp) == 0) || (getWeekday(tempStamp) == 1 && getHour(tempStamp) < 14),"Contract can only be locked in between Sunday 00:00 UTC and Monday 14:00 UTC");
LinkTokenInterface link = LinkTokenInterface(chainlinkTokenAddress());
//require(link.balanceOf(address(this)) >= totalFee, "Contract requires 0.5 LINK total to operate once locked, current LINK balance is under 0.5.");
locked = true;
return true;
}
Proxy contract with require commented(also see the contract's txs, you can see me call lock):
https://kovan.etherscan.io/address/0x1f805d559f6eb7d7b19bf0340db288503f448ae8
Implementation contract the proxy points to:
https://kovan.etherscan.io/address/0xfb41ea6452da396279cbd9d9d8c136121e38fab6
Proxy contract with require uncommented(also see the contract's txs, you can see me call lock, and the revert):
https://kovan.etherscan.io/address/0x2d59aa0c1dd9a77d592167c43f2e65adcb275bfe
Implementation contract the proxy points to:
0x20a1f27d69f7a257741eddaec433642194af0215
Proxy Code and Implementation Code
Referenced Code: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/proxy/Proxy.sol
Proxy: https://github.com/benschreyer/Steak/blob/main/SteakQuarterly/ProxyPattern/SteakQuarterlyProxy.sol
Important Note In my proxy I do not want to declare the contract as a ChainlinkClient since then ChainlinkClient's functions will be included in the proxy which is unnecessary as the implementation should have those methods already. Instead I only declare the fields and of ChainlinkClient on my own. I feel like this is a prime place for my implementation to be wrong, but I am not sure what needs to change/if this is even feasible
Implementation: https://github.com/benschreyer/Steak/blob/main/SteakQuarterly/ProxyPattern/SteakQuarterlyDelegate.sol
EDIT: MINIMAL CODE EXAMPLE THAT STILL FAILS
This contract should have the minimal requirements to be a proxy for a ChainlinkClient and only has the lock function and a constructor, I get the same revert on require(owner == msg.sender). If I remove the require, the call to lock on the proxy contract says confirmed, but the proxy's state variables remain unchanged (debugAddr is 0, locked stays false)
Here is the minimal example code(I deployed on remix IDE compiled 0.6.12, the proxy's lock function was called by using at address retrieval with the delegate code compiled so that the abi of the delegate is used): https://github.com/benschreyer/Steak/tree/main/MinimalCodeExample
EDIT 2:
If I remove the ChainlinkClient portion/fields of my proxy and implementation minimum examples as linked above, I get a proxy contract that works and can accept external function calls defined in the implementation contract as it should.
So my question now is how do I write proxy and implementation contract that supports Chainlink GET request functionality? What fields/constants/events/interfaces does my proxy need defined or imported and where should I define/import them to allow for Chainlink to work? For example if I wanted to have my contract retrieve the temperature in Paris from an API via Chainlink, but also be a proxy so that I do not have to redploy all its functions and save on gas price.
Anything I have tried so far(see minimal breaking example) does not work once I add Chainlink into the mix, as I am not sure about how to structure the Proxy contract class so that the storage of the proxy and the access/write of the delegate call to the implementation line up. Here is the minimal code that works after I remove Chainlink functionality:
https://github.com/benschreyer/Steak/tree/main/MinimalCodeExample/WorkingButNoChainlink
A version of my working example proxy/implementation pattern contracts but with Chainlink functionality, or pointers on what fields/events/cosntant the proxy contract needs in order for it to make calls to oracles would be much appreciated.
Instead of defining the fields of ChainlinkClient in your proxy class, write a class ChainlinkClientStorage that holds the fields of ChainlinkClient, then declare your Proxy as inheriting from ChainlinkClientStorage
https://github.com/benschreyer/Steak/blob/main/SteakQuarterly/ProxyPattern/ChainlinkClientStorage.sol
https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/proxy/Proxy.sol
contract MyProxy is ChainlinkClientStorage, MyContractStorage{}
I created/fork a bep20 token, if finishes successfully & contract fully created.
But i cant see the token or anything related to the token in the contract. the only thing visible are the contract address, transaction hash. e.t.c. you can check the link below to verify my words.
https://bscscan.com/tx/0xc61a353504deca41bdfb46b199f91adedd2bbd19f5ddae29ba54122a71e68c3f
As the contract detail page says, you deployed the library Address - not the contract SafeMoon that you probably wanted to deploy.
Since you're deploying the contract using Remix, you need to select the correct contract in the Deploy tab.
I want a solidity contract to compile and deploy in remix.ethereum
the contract code I used brings always errors!
Error message:
This contract may be abstract, not implement an abstract parent’s methods completely or not invoke an inherited contract’s constructor correctly.
I want to use a new contract to verify and publish my tokens.
can you help me pls with a new contract that works with a remix and verifying etherscan?
regards
Based on the error message, you are trying to deploy the ERC20Interface instead of the contract x.
The solution is simple in Remix: Chose the correct contract to deploy from the selectbox.