Error: invalid address or ENS name

[EHSchmitt4395]

Error: invalid address or ENS name (argument="name", value=undefined, code=INVALID_ARGUMENT, version=contracts/5.6.2)

Losing my mind over an error on code that used to work

const maticProvider = new ethers.providers.JsonRpcProvider(
  process.env.POLYGON_RPC_URL
);

if (process.env.PRIVATE_KEY === undefined) {
  throw new Error("Private key is not defined");
}

const private_key = process.env.PRIVATE_KEY;
const signer = new ethers.Wallet(private_key, maticProvider);
const Contract= new ethers.Contract(
  ContractAddress,
  Contract.abi,
  maticProvider
);
...
...
        const tx = await Contract.connect(signer).ContractFunction(params, {
          gasLimit: 15000000,
          gasPrice: gasPrice.toString()
        });

Contract address is valid and deployed on to matic mainnet, it is searchable, the env is exported in string format. When i resolve the address or utils test it, it comes out good. To my knowledge when i console log the signer and the contract before the tx is sent things look good values are all there. I can do normal read only calls. I considered maybe the params were off -- but ive tested parameters via simulations in tenderly so i feel confident those are fine.

What else do i check with this maddening error? Where is name? How is it undefined? Ive checked the npm package code and it seems like things should check out with me providing ContractAddress as string? Again valid contract that is deployed and accessible.

Is there a better version i can use to avoid all this ens jazz? I just need to resolve a standard 0x address, no need for ether dns in my use case.

Cheers!! Lmk what else i may need to show. Frustrating :/

[ricmoo]

Can you use console.log(ContractAddress) and console.log(params)? This is nearly always caused by changes in the environment that they forgot they changed, such as renaming a file name, or running from a different folder (where a .env isn’t configured). A console.log is worth its weight in gold. :)

[EHSchmitt4395]

more on the contract address

        console.log(await signer.resolveName(ContractAddress))
        console.log(ethers.utils.getAddress(ContractAddress))
        console.log(ethers.utils.isAddress(ContractAddress))

results in:

[[16:46:01.607]] [LOG]   0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[[16:46:01.608]] [LOG]   0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[[16:46:01.608]] [LOG]   true

first two logs are the same and also correct contract address hmm

[ricmoo]

Your params object doesn’t quite match though, unless you modified the structure to make it easier to understand?

There should be an address1 for example, so if (internal) it uses params.address1 it currently would get undefined for something expected to be an address. Since an object isn’t passed as an ordered set, params must either be a positional Array representation, or my guess from your above example, a named property object; which means all named components must have a corresponding property in the object.

[EHSchmitt4395]

apologies I did modify to make it a bit clearer :o -- let me try again

    {
      "inputs": [
        {
          "components": [
            {
              "internalType": "address",
              "name": "me",
              "type": "address"
            },
            {
              "internalType": "address",
              "name": "address1",
              "type": "address"
            },
            {
              "internalType": "address",
              "name": "address2",
              "type": "address"
            },
            {
              "internalType": "address",
              "name": "address3",
              "type": "address"
            },
            {
              "internalType": "uint256",
              "name": "bignumber",
              "type": "uint256"
            },
            {
              "internalType": "address[]",
              "name": "addresses1",
              "type": "address[]"
            },
            {
              "internalType": "address[]",
              "name": "addresses2",
              "type": "address[]"
            }
          ],
          "internalType": "struct Contract.ContractParams",
          "name": "params",
          "type": "tuple"
        }
      ],
      "name": "ContractFunc",
      "outputs": [],
      "stateMutability": "nonpayable",
      "type": "function"
    },

with params:

{
  address1: '0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx',
  address2: '0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx',
  address3: '0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx',
  bignumber: '123456789123456789',
  addresses1: [
    'x',
    'x',
    'x',
    'x',
    'x',
    'x'
  ],
  addresses2: [
    'x',
    'x',
    'x',
    'x',
    'x'
  ]
}

is it possible that its receiving the error from

            {
              "internalType": "address",
              "name": "me",
              "type": "address"
            },

despite getting that in contract from a :
me: msg.sender, ?

more context from contract code:

    struct ContractParams{
       address me;
       address address1;
       address address2;
       address address3;
       uint256 bignumber;
       address[] addresses1;
       address[] addresses2;
   }
    function ContractFunc(ContractParams memory params) external onlyOwner  {
       bytes memory data = abi.encode(
           ContractCallbackData({
               me: msg.sender,
               address1: params.address1,
               address2: params.address2,
               address3: params.address3,
               bignumber: params.bignumber,
               addresses1: params.addresses1,
               addresses2: params.addresses2
           })
       );

[ricmoo]

What do you mean getting it from msg.sender? It’s part of the struct, so it needs to be included for the ABI… If you don’t need it in the contract, you could just not include it in the struct. But yes, that would definitely cause an error. A struct must be fully specified, since it has to encode something for the binary representation.

[EHSchmitt4395]

ahhhh my bad. I see. Since its getting it from the contract anyway i tested by just throwing it a random input for 'me' and it was able to send without an error..

All the love, thanks for the ear and walking me through this legend. :D