Misleading error when too many arguments or missing arguments

[zemse]

Describe the Feature

Currently, if there is an invalid argument count, then ethers v6 throws an error that says "no matching function". However, it can point the dev to look in the wrong direction, i.e. check if ABI being passed is correct.

Error: no matching fragment (operation="fragment", code=UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION, version=6.0.5)

But if a more helpful error is thrown, it can be helpful to immediately point out that the issue is in the arguments somewhere, similar to the error in ethers v5 which says expected argument count is 1 but passed is 2.

Error: too many arguments: passed to contract (count=2, expectedCount=1, code=UNEXPECTED_ARGUMENT, version=contracts/5.5.0)

Code Example

await dai.balanceOf(ZeroAddress)
// works

await dai.balanceOf(ZeroAddress, 0)
// Error: no matching fragment (operation="fragment", code=UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION, version=6.0.5)

await dai.balanceOf()
// Error: no matching fragment (operation="fragment", code=UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION, version=6.0.5)

[ricmoo]

Good catch. I’ll get this in over the next week. :)

[nnzo]

Still getting this error!

[1337-ishaan]

I'm stuck with this

[ricmoo]

I'm poking around that code right now. Let me try to add a better error for that right now. :)

[1337-ishaan]

Any workaround for that error @ricmoo?

[ricmoo]

I’ve got the fix checked in locally. I’ll push it soon to the repo and make a patch request this afternoon.

[1337-ishaan]

Absolutely, thanks for considering!

[ricmoo]

This has been address in v6.6.5. The error now includes the key and the arguments passed to help identify what the problem is.

Let me know if you have any more suggestions.

Thanks! :)

[chainfloo]

This has been address in v6.6.5. The error now includes the key and the arguments passed to help identify what the problem is.

Let me know if you have any more suggestions.

Thanks! :)

I'm using v6.7.0 and this error just popped up. I got it for the same reason: passing less params than required by a function.

[ricmoo]

@chainfloo can you provide a simple 2-3 line example?

[BeatsuDev]

I'm using v6.7.1 and this error popped up when trying to read a public property from my smart contract: mapping(uint256 => address) public nfts;. Is this in any way related? Should I create a new issue for this, or is this expected behaviour?

ethers.BrowserProvider(window.ethereum). window.ethereum was injected by Metamask in my case.

Steps to recreate the error:

TL;DR

Add mapping(uint256 => address) public test; as a property to a smart contract, then try getting that value with ethers.js: let test = await smartContract.test();.

Complete step by step recreation:

Create a new vue project (default options for all commands):

npm create vue

cd vue-project
npm install --save-dev "hardhat@^2.17.2" "@nomicfoundation/hardhat-toolbox@^3.0.0" ethers
npx hardhat

Add this line of code in the Lock contract:

    mapping(uint256 => address) public test;

Add this code to src/App.vue in the script tag:

import SmartContract from '../artifacts/contracts/Lock.sol/Lock.json';
import { ethers } from "ethers";

const smartContractAddress = "0x5FbDB2315678afecb367f032d93F642f64180aa3";
const provider = new ethers.BrowserProvider(window.ethereum);
const smartContract = new ethers.Contract(smartContractAddress, SmartContract.abi, provider);

async function getValue() {
  console.log("Getting value!")
  let test = await smartContract.test();
  console.log("Here is the test: ", test);
}

getValue();

In separate terminals, un the hardhat localhost node network, deploy the smart contract and run the vue project:

npx hardhat node

npx hardhat run --network localhost scripts/deploy.js

npm run dev

Go to http://localhost:5173/ and you should receive the error in the console:

[hsjo12]

mapping(uint256 => address) public test;

Just randomly visited this,

The error you got is because you did not pass a parameter.

It would be "await smartContract.test(0);"
The parameter type is uint256 as you can see the abi down below

[
	{
		"inputs": [
			{
				"internalType": "uint256",
				"name": "",
				"type": "uint256"
			}
		],
		"name": "test",
		"outputs": [
			{
				"internalType": "address",
				"name": "",
				"type": "address"
			}
		],
		"stateMutability": "view",
		"type": "function"
	}
] 

[RaekwonIII]

On version 6.8.1, I've been pulling my hair out for two days, trying to find out why I cannot programmatically deposit to activate my validator, and I end up here. Is it possible this is still an issue? I cannot find out what exactly is going wrong with this:

  let contract = new ethers.Contract(
    process.env.DEPOSIT_CONTRACT ||
      "0x4242424242424242424242424242424242424242",
    DepositContract,
    signer
  );

  let deposit_func = contract.getFunction("deposit")
  let transaction = await deposit_func.call(
    {
      pubkey,
      withdrawal_credentials,
      signature,
      deposit_data_root,
    },
    {
      value: deposit,
      gasPrice: 130000000000,
      gasLimit: 3000000
    }
  );
  let res = await transaction.wait();

ABI says:

{
  "inputs": [
    { "internalType": "bytes", "name": "pubkey", "type": "bytes" },
    {
      "internalType": "bytes",
      "name": "withdrawal_credentials",
      "type": "bytes"
    },
    { "internalType": "bytes", "name": "signature", "type": "bytes" },
    {
      "internalType": "bytes32",
      "name": "deposit_data_root",
      "type": "bytes32"
    }
  ],
  "name": "deposit",
  "outputs": [],
  "stateMutability": "payable",
  "type": "function"
} 

It's such a damn trivial thing, and I cannot make it work, this error is so unhelpful...

[ricmoo]

@RaekwonIII

What error are you getting?

I won’t expect that code to work at first glance, as you are using call (which doesn’t submit a transaction) and there isn’t a wait property on the result…

[ricmoo]

Also the ABI specifies 4 inputs and you are only passing 1.

Oh. I think I see what you are trying to do. That isn’t the correct syntax. remove the braces around the names parameter set you are passing to the function. So, deposit(pubkey, creds, sig, root, overrides).

[RaekwonIII]

I gotta admit, that was kind of the "last resort" code to give an idea of what I was trying to accomplish. I started out with:

  let contract = new ethers.Contract(
    process.env.DEPOSIT_CONTRACT ||
      "0x4242424242424242424242424242424242424242",
    DepositContract,
    signer
  );

  let transaction = contract.deposit(
      pubkey,
      withdrawal_credentials,
      signature,
      deposit_data_root,
    {
      value: deposit,
    }
  );
  let res = await transaction.wait();

And the error I was getting was exactly the one in the first message:

Error: no matching fragment (operation="fragment", code=UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION, version=6.0.5)

Which is why I am saying: this is not helpful, cause I spent two days trying, essentially, random things, cause I understand my code is not exactly matching the ABI, but I have no indication as to "how" it does not match up.

[RaekwonIII]

Also the ABI specifies 4 inputs and you are only passing 1.

Oh. I think I see what you are trying to do. That isn’t the correct syntax. remove the braces around the names parameter set you are passing to the function. So, deposit(pubkey, creds, sig, root, overrides).

Just noticed: that's pretty much what I started with, or, rather, what I think I have started with, but it's still giving me troubles, so I went down the rabbit hole 😢

[RaekwonIII]

@ricmoo for the record, I have downgraded to "ethers": "^5.7.0" and now, while trying to run (essentially) the code I shared here above I am getting this error:

233 |         }
234 |         if (messageDetails.length) {
235 |             message += " (" + messageDetails.join(", ") + ")";
236 |         }
237 |         // @TODO: Any??
238 |         var error = new Error(message);
                        ^
error: invalid arrayify value (argument="value", value="a6f245cab776aa282e268fc1e8c2896f149985bb1851846a37c7d0d001374905551c2871d4504fe88b5b0adc68db6a8f", code=INVALID_ARGUMENT, version=bytes/5.7.0)
 code: "INVALID_ARGUMENT"

which, at least, is hinting me that there's something wrong with converting the pubkey from the deposit file I have, which when read is a string, to what the contract methods requires, which is bytes32.

Here's the file, by the way (not concerned about security, it's tests on goerli):

[
  {
    "pubkey": "a6f245cab776aa282e268fc1e8c2896f149985bb1851846a37c7d0d001374905551c2871d4504fe88b5b0adc68db6a8f",
    "withdrawal_credentials": "010000000000000000000000a1a66cc5d309f19fb2fda2b7601b223053d0f7f4",
    "amount": 32000000000,
    "signature": "8d3569a675cbd73dd70abe1dbbbce4db8f953d29aae9e370fc804b4a152ff68679ae06060fdf60eed164fb460877a5320a0a12647fc01955a804289d808ea4819d67f37e995ced0005bea97a4f69d71b58b61426181de5f16986b0e93b4028f9",
    "deposit_message_root": "c7517155df2623f40a9d9d643b2cccf0dfbc963911e4323c6098e111735daa1c",
    "deposit_data_root": "a3fa2b592e1f48f9d4ae7b41ef4bf821bb5eed2d01deb7988dd2360fc33f5bf9",
    "fork_version": "00001020",
    "network_name": "goerli",
    "deposit_cli_version": "2.6.0"
  }
]

So all in all, this is to say: ethers 6 does not provide enough information to correct the underlying issue. And also: does anyone know how to fix the issue, now that I have a better idea?

[hsjo12]

@ricmoo for the record, I have downgraded to "ethers": "^5.7.0" and now, while trying to run (essentially) the code I shared here above I am getting this error:

233 |         }
234 |         if (messageDetails.length) {
235 |             message += " (" + messageDetails.join(", ") + ")";
236 |         }
237 |         // @TODO: Any??
238 |         var error = new Error(message);
                        ^
error: invalid arrayify value (argument="value", value="a6f245cab776aa282e268fc1e8c2896f149985bb1851846a37c7d0d001374905551c2871d4504fe88b5b0adc68db6a8f", code=INVALID_ARGUMENT, version=bytes/5.7.0)
 code: "INVALID_ARGUMENT"

which, at least, is hinting me that there's something wrong with converting the pubkey from the deposit file I have, which when read is a string, to what the contract methods requires, which is bytes32.

Here's the file, by the way (not concerned about security, it's tests on goerli):

[
  {
    "pubkey": "a6f245cab776aa282e268fc1e8c2896f149985bb1851846a37c7d0d001374905551c2871d4504fe88b5b0adc68db6a8f",
    "withdrawal_credentials": "010000000000000000000000a1a66cc5d309f19fb2fda2b7601b223053d0f7f4",
    "amount": 32000000000,
    "signature": "8d3569a675cbd73dd70abe1dbbbce4db8f953d29aae9e370fc804b4a152ff68679ae06060fdf60eed164fb460877a5320a0a12647fc01955a804289d808ea4819d67f37e995ced0005bea97a4f69d71b58b61426181de5f16986b0e93b4028f9",
    "deposit_message_root": "c7517155df2623f40a9d9d643b2cccf0dfbc963911e4323c6098e111735daa1c",
    "deposit_data_root": "a3fa2b592e1f48f9d4ae7b41ef4bf821bb5eed2d01deb7988dd2360fc33f5bf9",
    "fork_version": "00001020",
    "network_name": "goerli",
    "deposit_cli_version": "2.6.0"
  }
]

So all in all, this is to say: ethers 6 does not provide enough information to correct the underlying issue. And also: does anyone know how to fix the issue, now that I have a better idea?

Hi there,
I have not tested it out, but I assume It should be formatted in the hexadecimal, simply adding 0x,
so it should be "0xa6f245cab776aa282e268fc1e8c2896f149985bb1851846a37c7d0d001374905551c2871d4504fe88b5b0adc68db6a8f"
and the other bytes typed values need 0x too