You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
(with the bytecode being set within the "accounts" subsection & associating the bytecode with the 0x....000073410f33D" address)
as the parameter that is passed through will be incorrect, and indeed even msg.sender in the constructor will return "0x000000000000000000000000000000073410f33D", which is not the system address that will be required to be checked in subsequent reward() calls (which does indeed come from 0xffffFFFfFFffffffffffffffFfFFFfffFFFfFFfE).
My suggestion is to specifically rename this file to a "RopstenExampleBlockReward" or the equivalent, with the "ExampleBlockReward" having the constructor parameter removed & the system address association uncommented.
I should note that this is more than likely an issue that wasn't spotted on Ropsten due to genesis.json configuration - in my tests the Ropsten ExampleBlockReward.sol (with those constructor parameters) will not complain if the bytecode is placed in a blockRewardContractCode vs the blockRewardContractAddress parameter (probably due to the call type difference).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The constructor within ExampleBlockReward.sol, where it takes in the "systemaddress" rather than directly using the commented out code
constructor(address _systemAddress) public { /* systemAddress = 0xffffFFFfFFffffffffffffffFfFFFfffFFFfFFfE; */ systemAddress = _systemAddress; }
This will fail on a production environment with the equivalent of:
(with the bytecode being set within the "accounts" subsection & associating the bytecode with the 0x....000073410f33D" address)
as the parameter that is passed through will be incorrect, and indeed even msg.sender in the constructor will return "0x000000000000000000000000000000073410f33D", which is not the system address that will be required to be checked in subsequent
reward()
calls (which does indeed come from 0xffffFFFfFFffffffffffffffFfFFFfffFFFfFFfE).My suggestion is to specifically rename this file to a "RopstenExampleBlockReward" or the equivalent, with the "ExampleBlockReward" having the constructor parameter removed & the system address association uncommented.
I should note that this is more than likely an issue that wasn't spotted on Ropsten due to genesis.json configuration - in my tests the Ropsten ExampleBlockReward.sol (with those constructor parameters) will not complain if the bytecode is placed in a
blockRewardContractCode
vs theblockRewardContractAddress
parameter (probably due to the call type difference).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: