[Contract Verification] Multiple issues with the era scan (sepolia) backend and having non-matching bytecode

[jordaniza]

Environment

Testnet

Issue Type

• Plugin
• Block Explorer

Contract Address

0x0E50DA17F263e165780d103Dc20B4bB911146c67

Compiler Type

Single file

zkSolc Version

1.4.1

Solc Version

0.8.17

Contract Name

DAO

Contract Code

https://gist.github.com/jordaniza/6fdce883e89f05fb0757d5dcdb9605bb

Constructor Arguments

0x

Hardhat Verify Plugin Version

"@matterlabs/hardhat-zksync-verify": "^0.6.0"
"@nomicfoundation/hardhat-verify": "^1.0.4"

Repo Link (Optional)

https://github.com/aragon/osx/blob/zksync-testing/packages/contracts/src/core/dao/DAO.sol
https://github.com/aragon/osx/blob/zksync-testing/packages/contracts/src/framework/dao/DAOFactory.sol

Additional Details

Hey team,

Having some real difficulties with verifying a couple contracts and think I'm outta options:

• When pinging the verification endpoint after running the verify command, I get an error which indicates that there is some discrepancy between:
  • my on-chain bytecode
  • the bytecode generated when sent by hardhat-verify to the verification endpoint
• This only happens for a handful of contracts like DAOFactory.sol and DAO.sol (and is successful for a number of others)
• I tried to flatten the DAOFactory.sol contract, this can't be done because of cyclic deps
• I was successfully able to flatten DAO.sol (linked) but got the same error when trying to manually upload to erascan.
• I got a different error when trying to use the plugin with DAO.sol: it takes no arguments in the constructor but runs into Backend verification error: Constructor arguments are not correct when passing 0x as the constructor args (EDIT: this is a known bug)
• We can't see the sepola erascan backend, so we have no idea what specifically is causing the discrepancy.

I've added full details in this thread

Would really welcome a hand here as we are blocked trying to deploy until we resolve this and I am really confused as to what the problem might be - thanks in advance!

[bxpana]

Appreciate the post and the repo link. Will check things out to see what's going on.

[kiriyaga-txfusion]

Hi @jordaniza,
After our investigation, here are some key points:

• When resolving contracts needed for DAOFactory verification hardhat try to only gather dependent contracts but this context wasn't enough for zksolc compiler on BE verification side. Once we sent full context to the BE, verification succeeded.
• Beside this, since the code base needed for DAOFactory verification is large, hardhat verify process ended so the fallback mechanism that send full context is not triggered. Nonetheless, contract DAOFactory is now verified, and you can access it here.
• Regarding DAO verification, currently the backend verification system does not support verifying contracts deployed from another contract. We are working to support this feature and we will let you know once this is implemented.

[jordaniza]

In case anyone stumbles across this: there are some limitations on the backend verifier which the ZkSync team were helpful enough to resolve for us. Recommend reaching out to them in the short term