Lesson 9 - Error: invalid address (argument="address", value=undefined, code=INVALID_ARGUMENT,

[ashrth]

I am facing the issues mentioned below, could anyone please look into it?
My repo link https://github.com/ashrth/Hardhat-Raffle
I have gone through all the discussion related to the problem, as well I don't see any discrepancies. I am at [ 16:22:49 ] currently which is lesson 9
The exact error is:]

ERROR processing /home/ash/hardhat-smartcontract-raffle/deploy/01-deploy-raffle.js:
Error: invalid address (argument="address", value=undefined, code=INVALID_ARGUMENT, version=address/5.7.0) (argument="vrfCoordinatorV2", value=undefined, code=INVALID_ARGUMENT, version=abi/5.7.0)

Also, when I am trying to run my unit and staging test, it is throwing this error:

Raffle Unit Tests
       "before each" hook for "works with live chainlink keeprs and chainlink VRF, we get a random winner":
     Error: No Contract deployed with name Raffle

I have not misspelled Raffle, tried to match my code with Patrick's repo and went through different discussions also, but no luck so far

[othaime-en]

Hey @ashrth you have an error on line 26 in your 01-deploy-raffle.js file. You are vrfcoordinatorV2 to retrieve the vrfcoordinatorV2 address from networkConfig while you used vrfCoordinatorV2 in your helper-hardhat-config file. (The difference is in the letter C)

I've made a PR. Tell me if it fixes your issue.

[ashrth]

@othaime-en I checked every vrfCoordinatorV2, don't understand how I missed this one, thank you this invalid address issue got resolved.
Could you also help me resolve the second issue I have mentioned?

[othaime-en]

Deploy the contract to rinkeby (yarn hardhat deploy --network rinkeby) and try running the test again.

[ashrth]

@othaime-en Ok, thank you, I'll try to run the test again

[alymurtazamemon]

@ashrth I have fixed your tests, Now it is working. Going to push it to your repo, check it.

[ashrth]

@othaime-en I tried to deploy it on goerli as you said and ran into this error, insufficient funds for intrinsic transaction cost [ See: https://links.ethers.org/v5-errors-INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS ] (error={"name":"ProviderError","code":-32000,"_isProviderError":true}, method="sendTransaction", transaction=undefined, code=INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS, version=providers/5.7.0)
I have around 40 Goerli test links, and enough eth. I have around 0.5 ETH on Goerli test net

[othaime-en]

Make sure the goerli account you put in your hardhat.config.js file has enough ETH in it.

[ashrth]

@othaime-en I have 0.5GoerliETH, the faucet only funds after 24 hours, is 0.5 a less amount?

[ashrth]

@othaime-en @krakxn even after adding 0.25 GoerliETH, it still says that I do not have sufficient funds. And when I am running the test before deploying it on Goerli it says No contract deployed named Raffle

---

Also, I wanted to mention that when I added Goerli rpc url, there were 3-4 options to choose from so I chose https://goerli.prylabs.net Is this causing this error? choosing a different might solve it?
Plus, when I am trying to test on rinkeby, it doesn't throw insufficient funds error and just says No contract deployed named Raffle

---

How come my unit test is working if Raffle as a contract is not present?
Here is the output when I run my unit test:

Raffle Unit Tests
    constructor
Updating front end....
      ✔ Initialize the raffle correctly (55ms)
    enterRaffle
      ✔ reverts when you don't pay enough (229ms)
      ✔ records players when they enter (111ms)
      ✔ emits event on enter (73ms)
      ✔ doesn't allow entrance when raffle is calculating (253ms)
    checkUpkeep
      ✔ returns false if people haven't sent any ETH (55ms)
      ✔ returns false if raffle isn't open (242ms)
      ✔ returns false if enough time hasn't passed (93ms)
      ✔ returns true if enough time has passed, has players, eth, and is open (91ms)
    performUpkeep
      ✔ it cam only run if checkUpkeep is true (142ms)
      ✔ reverts when checkupkeep is false  (54ms)
      ✔ updates the raffle state, emits an event, and call the vrf coordinator (171ms)
    fulfillRandomWords
      1) can only be called after performUpkeep

[sajidganie]

@alymurtazamemon i am aslo aving the same problem as problem ist can u help me

[krakxn]

It being stuck is most likely because of Rinkeby; try Goerli and if it persists, let me know :)

[krakxn]

@alymurtazamemon Could you verify the Chainlink version (which we add as a devDependecy)? That--as it seems--could be a plausible issue too.

Is the version, i.e. "@chainlink/contracts": "^0.4.1",, in your package.json correct?

[alymurtazamemon]

@krakxn 0.4.0

[ashrth]

@krakxn mine is "@chainlink/contracts": "^0.4.0", I changed my timeout to 5 mins as well, still the same

[krakxn]

@ashrth I have no idea why this is happening with the logic correct. I would just suggest moving on if you grasped the concept and also tried your best in debugging it.

As one last solution, I would recommend making a completely new directory with different versions of the dependencies (you can always clone).

[ashrth]

@krakxn I'll try this as well and move ahead with the course. Thank you very much for all your help.

[RoboCrypter]

@ashrth : So, You want to pass your staging test right ? and it is not resolving the promise in fulfillRandomWords!

And are you using the same code and node_modules from the Patrick repo ? So, that I don't have to again install dependencies!

[ashrth]

@abossofmyself How come it is running in your system? It was mentioned in one of the related discussions to change the import of Raffle.sol from @chainlink/contracts/src/v0.8/interfaces/KeeperCompatibleInterface.sol"; to @chainlink/contracts/src/v0.8/KeeperCompatible.sol I tried that as well, but it is still the same.

[RoboCrypter]

@ashrth : I have run the exact same code of yours and your exact staging test, Do not change the imports.

Why not you deploy your contract again and register it again on both VRF and Keepers, lets see what happens.

[ashrth]

@abossofmyself It did it twice, Yes when it didn't do anything, I changed it to what it was before. No problem. I'll just leave it here because my code doesn't have any issue because you ran the same code, it might be something else.

[RoboCrypter]

@ashrth : Yes absolutely : Your code is 100% fine,

Personally I have tested it 3 times, with different deployments,

And all the times, It passes successfully!

And my last deployment and staging test of your code was 5 hours ago, I am sharing a screenshot for you to look at 👍

https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/address/0x8ecd79f88a631e1a423b4f5a4763c2fd4868b47b

[ashrth]

Yes @abossofmyself thank you for making efforts to help.