JS ABI Issue

[joeykrug]

Take the following contract for example:

def createMarket(events:arr): return(events[0]

Its address is bf1f9a04cb5c85e9538a6f0e6ba15c824808cfee
And its description is:

[{ "name": "createMarket(int256[])", "type": "function", "inputs": [{ "name": "events", "type": "int256[]" }], "outputs": [{ "name": "out", "type": "int256" }] }]

If called in the web3.js console, e.g.

> contract.call({"from": eth.coinbase}).createMarket([-2333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333332222222222233]).toNumber();```   it'll return ```-2.3333333333333333e+63

which is the correct value.

Now if we use this contract:

def createMarket(branch, description:str, alpha, initialLiquidity, tradingFee, events:arr): return(events[0])

with address 0xe95aa1829447058201872db6ae3f04c3785a05b0
And description:

[{ "name": "createMarket(int256,string,int256,int256,int256,int256[])", "type": "function", "inputs": [{ "name": "branch", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "description", "type": "bytes" }, { "name": "alpha", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "initialLiquidity", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "tradingFee", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "events", "type": "int256[]" }], "outputs": [{ "name": "out", "type": "int256" }] }]

We end up getting completely wrong responses:

> contract.call({"from": eth.coinbase}).createMarket(2, "ok", 2, 2, 2, [444]).toNumber();
0
> contract.call({"from": eth.coinbase}).createMarket(2, "ok", 2, 2, 2, [-371]).toNumber();
65535
> contract.call({"from": eth.coinbase}).createMarket(2, "ok", 2, 2, 2, [371]).toNumber();
0
> contract.call({"from": eth.coinbase}).createMarket(2, "ok", 2, 2, 2, [-37117353667364131058659323780745282444029701754006041568106926382588839136039]).toNumber();
44528
> contract.call({"from": eth.coinbase}).createMarket(2, "ok", 2, 2, 2, [-4443434345]).toNumber();
65535

Edit: now contract.foo().call() is returning

error: could not decode, json: cannot unmarshal array into Go value of type struct { From string; To string; Value interface {}; Gas interface {}; GasPrice interface {}; Data string }

[frozeman]

i reformatted you issue it was unreadable. ;)
Btw what kind of contract language you use?

[frozeman]

web3.js contracts are solely for solidity at the moment and the contracts you're showing there are either incomplete or no solidity contracts i guess.

[joeykrug]

Oh yes it's a serpent contract ---

Any reason it's giving this error?
error: could not decode, json: cannot unmarshal array into Go value of type struct

Even with a solidity contract that takes an array as a parameter it gives me that error when trying to call contract

[frozeman]

the problem is, i have without line numbers no way to tell where this error is generated.

[joeykrug]

Latest output it gives:

> contract.createMarket.call([3])

error: could not decode, json: cannot unmarshal array into Go value of type struct { From string; To string; Value interface {}; Gas interface {}; GasPrice interface {}; Data string }

Invalid JSON RPC response at InvalidResponse (<anonymous>:-14377:-32) at send (<anonymous>:-29300:-32) at call (<anonymous>:-27355:-32) at call (<anonymous>:-23992:-32) at <anonymous>:1:1

[obscuren]

The calls generate very odd output. The eth_call or eth_transact look like [[0xaaadress]] which fails in decoding. It expects [{"to":...,"from":..., etc}]

[debris]

1

[{ "name": "createMarket(int256,string,int256,int256,int256,int256[])", "type": "function", "inputs": [{ "name": "branch", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "description", "type": "bytes" }, { "name": "alpha", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "initialLiquidity", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "tradingFee", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "events", "type": "int256[]" }], "outputs": [{ "name": "out", "type": "int256" }] }]

that's not correct. should be

- [{ "name": "createMarket(int256,string,int256,int256,int256,int256[])", "type": "function", "inputs": [{ "name": "branch", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "description", "type": "bytes" }, { "name": "alpha", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "initialLiquidity", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "tradingFee", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "events", "type": "int256[]" }], "outputs": [{ "name": "out", "type": "int256" }] }]
+ [{ "name": "createMarket(int256,bytes,int256,int256,int256,int256[])", "type": "function", "inputs": [{ "name": "branch", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "description", "type": "bytes" }, { "name": "alpha", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "initialLiquidity", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "tradingFee", "type": "int256" }, { "name": "events", "type": "int256[]" }], "outputs": [{ "name": "out", "type": "int256" }] }]

name of the function is used to generate function sha3. It cannot be string any more. Use bytes instead. Or even bytes32.

2

parsing input should be ok. But just to be 100% sure, I've created test for encoding your input params:

test({ types: ['int', 'bytes', 'int', 'int', 'int', 'int[]'], values: [1, 'gavofyork', 2, 3, 4, [5, 6, 7]],
                                                            expected: '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000009' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000004' +
                                                                      '6761766f66796f726b0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000005' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000006' +
                                                                      '0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007'});

3

Latest output it gives:

contract.createMarket.call([3])

You are right. I fixed it in latest web3.js develop. Here is test

Thanks for reporting it, cause it was critical.

[chriseth]

Does this really work? The expectation should be
1 9 2 3 4 3 676176... 5 6 7
If this still causes problems, it would be another point in favour for moving to the new ABI proposal: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proposal-for-new-ABI-value-encoding

[debris]

@chriseth why 1 9 2 3 4 3 676176... 5 6 7 ?

I though length of dynamic params, should be always at the beginning. Look at sam example

[debris]

also, I though that constants should be before dynamic contents, #85

[debris]

btw. the proposal looks good, but it would be nice, to have 2-3 examples of encoding to clarify everything.

[chriseth]

The examples on the wiki page of the specification seem to contradict the specification itself.
I hope that the new proposal does not need examples for clarification, only for illustration :-)

[joeykrug]

Hmmm when i call a contract, getting a different error now
contract.double({from: eth.coinbase}).call(1010101)

new BigNumber() not a number: [object Object]

Nvm, was using wrong syntax

contract.getCreator.call(1010101, {from: eth.coinbase}): is proper syntax

[frozeman]

yes ;)

[chriseth]

Actually, I looked at the sam example again at it does not contradict the specification because all of its parameters are dynamic.

[debris]

I fixed old encoding/decoding in #187. @chriseth can you verify that this tests for encoding and decoding are correct?

[debris]

fixed in #187

[ethers]

update: this is changing / being fixed in #194