I'm setting up my truffle config file and I'm setting the from address from an env variable like this:
module.exports = {
networks: {
local: {
host: "127.0.0.1",
port: 8545,
network_id: "*",
from: process.env.OWNER,
}
}
};
Then I run OWNER=<address> truffle migrate --network local
Any suggestions on a better way to do this, to get truffle to use the first address generated by ganache?
If you omit the from parameter in your truffle.cfg, it will automatically default to the first account returned by web3.eth.getAccounts from the provider you're connected to.
If you want more dynamic control over the account used, you can control this with the deployer.
var SimpleContract = artifacts.require("SimpleContract");
module.exports = function(deployer, network, accounts) {
deployer.deploy(SimpleContract, { from: accounts[1] }); // Deploy contract from the 2nd account in the list
deployer.deploy(SimpleContract, { from: accounts[2] }); // Deploy the same contract again (different address) from the 3rd account.
};
Of course, you don't have to use the account list passed in and you can pull in a list from any other data source you want. You can also use network if you want to have environment specific logic.
Related
I am currently developing a dapp and I am integrating walletconnect.
I use this code for connecting:
const chainId = ContractService.getPreferredChainId();
const rpc = ContractService.getRpcAddress();
provider = new WalletConnectProvider({
infuraId: undefined,
rpc: {
[chainId]: rpc,
},
});
await provider.enable();
chainId is dynamically chosen based on if the app is in development mode or not. while in development it runs on chain id 97.
RPC is the same story, it just gets the binance smart chain RPC JSON provider.
Connecting works well, but I get the following error:
Any idea on how I can fix this without making an infura account? Or is that required..
I found out what the problem was.
make sure to add a chainId to the object like this:
new WalletConnectProvider({
infuraId: undefined,
rpc: {
1: "https://RPC_URL",
},
chainId: 1
});
Then it should work without issues, you can even omit the infuraId field
I am trying to setup AWS API Gateway to access a fargate container in a private VPC as described here. For this I am using AWS CDK as described below. But when I curl the endpoint after successful cdk deploy I get "Internal Server Error" as a response. I can't find any additional information. For some reason API GW can't reach the container.
So when I curl the endpoint like this:
curl - i https://xxx.execute-api.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/prod/MyResource
... I get the following log output in cloud watch:
Extended Request Id: NpuEPFWHliAFm_w=
Verifying Usage Plan for request: 757c6b9e-c4af-4dab-a5b1-542b15a1ba21. API Key: API Stage: ...
PI Key authorized because method 'ANY /MyResource/{proxy+}' does not require API Key. Request will not contribute to throttle or quota limits
Usage Plan check succeeded for API Key and API Stage ...
Starting execution for request: 757c6b9e-c4af-4dab-a5b1-542b15a1ba21
HTTP Method: GET, Resource Path: /MyResource/test
Execution failed due to configuration error: There was an internal error while executing your request
CDK Code
First I create a network load balanced fargate service:
private setupService(): NetworkLoadBalancedFargateService {
const vpc = new Vpc(this, 'MyVpc');
const cluster = new Cluster(this, 'MyCluster', {
vpc: vpc,
});
cluster.connections.allowFromAnyIpv4(Port.tcp(5050));
const taskDefinition = new FargateTaskDefinition(this, 'MyTaskDefinition');
const container = taskDefinition.addContainer('MyContainer', {
image: ContainerImage.fromRegistry('vad1mo/hello-world-rest'),
});
container.addPortMappings({
containerPort: 5050,
hostPort: 5050,
});
const service = new NetworkLoadBalancedFargateService(this, 'MyFargateServie', {
cluster,
taskDefinition,
assignPublicIp: true,
});
service.service.connections.allowFromAnyIpv4(Port.tcp(5050));
return service;
}
Next I create the VpcLink and the API Gateway:
private setupApiGw(service: NetworkLoadBalancedFargateService) {
const api = new RestApi(this, `MyApi`, {
restApiName: `MyApi`,
deployOptions: {
loggingLevel: MethodLoggingLevel.INFO,
},
});
// setup api resource which forwards to container
const resource = api.root.addResource('MyResource');
resource.addProxy({
anyMethod: true,
defaultIntegration: new HttpIntegration('http://localhost.com:5050', {
httpMethod: 'ANY',
options: {
connectionType: ConnectionType.VPC_LINK,
vpcLink: new VpcLink(this, 'MyVpcLink', {
targets: [service.loadBalancer],
vpcLinkName: 'MyVpcLink',
}),
},
proxy: true,
}),
defaultMethodOptions: {
authorizationType: AuthorizationType.NONE,
},
});
resource.addMethod('ANY');
this.addCorsOptions(resource);
}
Anyone has a clue what is wrong with this config?
After hours of trying I finally figured out that the security groups do not seem to be updated correctly when setting up the VpcLink with CDK. Broadening the allowed connection with
service.service.connections.allowFromAnyIpv4(Port.allTraffic())
solved it. Still need to figure out which minimum set needs to be set instead of allTrafic()
Additionally I replaced localhost in the HttpIntegration by the endpoint of the load balancer like this:
resource.addMethod("ANY", new HttpIntegration(
'http://' + service.loadBalancer.loadBalancerDnsName,
{
httpMethod: 'ANY',
options: {
connectionType: ConnectionType.VPC_LINK,
vpcLink: new VpcLink(this, 'MyVpcLink', {
targets: [service.loadBalancer],
vpcLinkName: 'MyVpcLink',
})
},
}
))
I am able to work with Truffle and Ganache-cli. Have deployed the contract and can play with that using truffle console
truffle(development)>
Voting.deployed().then(function(contractInstance)
{contractInstance.voteForCandidate('Rama').then(function(v)
{console.log(v)})})
undefined
truffle(development)> { tx:
'0xe4f8d00f7732c09df9e832bba0be9f37c3e2f594d3fbb8aba93fcb7faa0f441d',
receipt:
{ transactionHash:
'0xe4f8d00f7732c09df9e832bba0be9f37c3e2f594d3fbb8aba93fcb7faa0f441d',
transactionIndex: 0,
blockHash:
'0x639482c03dba071973c162668903ab98fb6ba4dbd8878e15ec7539b83f0e888f',
blockNumber: 10,
gasUsed: 28387,
cumulativeGasUsed: 28387,
contractAddress: null,
logs: [],
status: '0x01',
logsBloom: ... }
Now when i started a server using "npm run dev". Server started fine but is not connecting with the Blockchain
i am getting the error
Uncaught (in promise) Error: Contract has not been deployed to detected network (network/artifact mismatch)
This is my truffle.js
// Allows us to use ES6 in our migrations and tests.
require('babel-register')
module.exports = {
networks: {
development: {
host: '127.0.0.1',
port: 8545,
network_id: '*', // Match any network id
gas: 1470000
}
}
}
Can you please guide me how i can connect ?
Solve the issue.
issue was at currentProvider, i gave the url of ganache blockchain provider and it worked.
if (typeof web3 !== 'undefined') {
console.warn("Using web3 detected from external source like Metamask")
// Use Mist/MetaMask's provider
// window.web3 = new Web3(web3.currentProvider);
window.web3 = new Web3(new Web3.providers.HttpProvider("http://localhost:7545"));
} else {
console.warn("No web3 detected. Falling back to http://localhost:8545. You should remove this fallback when you deploy live, as it's inherently insecure. Consider switching to Metamask for development. More info here: http://truffleframework.com/tutorials/truffle-and-metamask");
// fallback - use your fallback strategy (local node / hosted node + in-dapp id mgmt / fail)
window.web3 = new Web3(new Web3.providers.HttpProvider("http://localhost:8545"));
}
In your truffle.js, change 8545 to 7545.
Or, in Ganache (GUI), click the gear in the upper right corner and change the port number from 7545 to 8545, then restart. With ganache-cli use -p 8545 option on startup to set 8545 as the port to listen on.
Either way, the mismatch seems to be the issue; these numbers should match. This is a common issue.
Also feel free to check out ethereum.stackexchange.com. If you want your question moved there, you can flag it and leave a message for a moderator to do that.
i try to run my first deepstream.io server from this link but i get this error :
error:
CONNECTION_ERROR | Error: listen EADDRINUSE 127.0.0.1:3003
PLUGIN_ERROR | connectionEndpoint wasn't initialised in time
f:\try\deep\node_modules\deepstream.io\src\utils\dependency-
initialiser.js:96
throw error
^
Error: connectionEndpoint wasn't initialised in time
at DependencyInitialiser._onTimeout
(f:\try\deep\node_modules\deepstream.io\src\utils\dependency-
initialiser.js:94:17)
at ontimeout (timers.js:386:14)
at tryOnTimeout (timers.js:250:5)
at Timer.listOnTimeout (timers.js:214:5)
and this is my code:
const DeepStreamServer = require("deepstream.io")
const C = DeepStreamServer.constants;
const server = new DeepStreamServer({
host:'localhost',
port:3003
})
server.start();
In deepstream 3.0 we released our HTTP endpoint, by default this runs alongside our websocket endpoint.
Because of this, passing the port option at the root level of the config no longer works (it overrides both the HTTP and websocket port options, as you can see in the screen capture provided, both endpoints are trying to start on the same port).
You can override each of these ports as follows:
const deepstream = require('deepstream.io')
const server = new deepstream({
connectionEndpoints: {
http: {
options: {
port: ...
}
},
websocket: {
options: {
port: ...
}
}
}
})
server.start()
Or you can define your config in a file and point to that while initialising deepstream[1].
[1] deepstream server configuration
One solution that i find is passing empty config object so inseted of :
const server = new DeepStreamServer({
host:'localhost',
port:3003
})
i'm just using this :
const server = new DeepStreamServer({})
and now everything work's well.
All the bellow is for Version 4.2.2 (last version by now)
I was having the same Port in use or config file not found errors. And i was using typescript and i didn't pay attention too to the output dir and build (which can be a problem when one use typescript and build). I was able to run the server in the end. And i had a lot of analysis.
I checked up the code source and i have seen how the config is loaded
const SUPPORTED_EXTENSIONS = ['.yml', '.yaml', '.json', '.js']
const DEFAULT_CONFIG_DIRS = [
path.join('.', 'conf', 'config'), path.join('..', 'conf', 'config'),
'/etc/deepstream/config', '/usr/local/etc/deepstream/config',
'/usr/local/etc/deepstream/conf/config',
]
DEFAULT_CONFIG_DIRS.push(path.join(process.argv[1], '..', 'conf', 'config'))
DEFAULT_CONFIG_DIRS.push(path.join(process.argv[1], '..', '..', 'conf', 'config'))
Also i tested different things and all. Here what i came up with:
First of all if we don't precise any parameter in the constructor. A config from the default directories will get to load. If there isn't then the server fail to run.
And one of the places where we can put a config is ./conf in the same folder as the server node script.
Secondly we can precise a config as a string path (parameter in the constructor). config.yml or one of the supported extensions. That will allow the server to load the server config + the permission.yml and users.yml configs. Which too are supposed to be in the same folder. If not in the same folder there load will fail, and therefor the permission plugin will not load. And so does the users config. And no fall back to default will happen.
Thirdly the supported extensions for the config files are: yml, yaml, json, js.
In nodejs context. If nothing precised. There is no fallback to some default config. The config need to be provided in one of the default folders, or by precising a path to it. Or by passing a config object. And all the optional options will default to some values if not provided ( a bit bellow there is an example that can show that ). Know however that precising an end point is very important and required.
To precise the path, we need to precise the path to the config.yml file (the server config) [example: path.join(__dirname, './conf/config.yml')]. Then from the same dir permission.yml and users.yml will be retrieved (the extension can be any of the supported one). We can not precise a path to a directory, it will fail.
We can precise the path to permission config or user config separatly within config.yaml as shown bellow:
# Permissioning example with default values for config-based permissioning
permission:
type: config
options:
path: ./permissions.yml
maxRuleIterations: 3
cacheEvacuationInterval: 60000
Finally we can pass an object to configure the server, or by passing null as a parameter and use .set methods (i didn't test the second method). For configuring the server we need to follow the same structure as the yml file. With sometimes a bit different naming. The typescript declaration files or types show us the way. With an editor like vscode. Even if we are not using typescript we can keep get the auto completion and type definitions.
And the simplest for equivalent to the previous version is :
const webSocketServer = new Deepstream({
connectionEndpoints: [
{
type: 'ws-websocket',
options: {
port: 6020,
host: '127.0.0.1',
urlPath: '/deepstream'
}
}
]
});
webSocketServer.start();
the above is the new syntax and way.
const server = new DeepStreamServer({
host:'localhost',
port:3003
})
^^^^^^^ is completely deprecated and not supported in version 4 (the doc is not updated).
I am using testrpc and truffle to test my contract.
When I type truffle migrate , this will deploy my contract to the testrpc network.
My question is , which account (from testrpc accounts) has been used to deploy the contract.
In other word, whose the contract owner?
Thank you in advance
By default the owner is accounts[0] so the first account on the list but you can set the owner by adding "from" in the truffle.js config file
module.exports = {
networks: {
development: {
host: "localhost",
port: 8545,
network_id: "*",
from: "0xda9b1a939350dc7198165ff84c43ce77a723ef73"
}
}
};
for more information about migration see this
https://github.com/trufflesuite/truffle/issues/138