[builder-etherscan]: compiled contracts included in verification

[abcoathup]

When verifying with buidler-etherscan plugin, other compiled (unrelated) contracts are also included in the verification.

The following simple example is a project with two contracts, where A is deployed to a public testnet and then verified.

$ npx buidler verify --network kovan 0xBc2bfE23f7Cd054283A51Fe64f5b3D69d2CBeCa9
Compiling...
Successfully submitted source code for contract
contracts/A.sol:A at 0xBc2bfE23f7Cd054283A51Fe64f5b3D69d2CBeCa9
for verification on etherscan. Waiting for verification result...
Successfully verified contract on etherscan

The verified contract on Etherscan shows both A and B files.

https://kovan.etherscan.io/address/0xBc2bfE23f7Cd054283A51Fe64f5b3D69d2CBeCa9#code

A.sol

// contracts/A.sol
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.6.0;

contract A {
    uint256 private _value;

    function doStuff(uint256 value) public {
        _value = value;
    }
}

B.sol

// contracts/B.sol
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.6.0;

contract B {
    bool private _value;

    function doStuff(bool value) public {
        _value = value;
    }
}

[alcuadrado]

Thanks for reporting this, @abcoathup!

Unfortunately, we have to upload all of the contracts atm, as there's a bug in solc that can prevent the contracts from verifying otherwise.

The good news is that we are about to ship a new compilation pipeline, that is aware of this bug, and will let us prune the unrelated contracts when we are sure that it won't cause any problems.

[mudgen]

I have the same problem. @alcuadrado Any news about this?

[mudgen]

@alcuadrado According to the solc issue about this, this problem exists for solc before 0.7.0. I am using solc 0.7.3 so I shouldn't have this problem.

So can builder-etherscan be updated to allow my 0.7.3 contracts to be verified without including disrelated contracts?

[dexcell]

@alcuadrado
Any update on this? Hope this will be fixed soon. since mock doesn't need to be uploaded and verified.

@mudgen
i tried it with 0.7.3 solc, not working, still all contracts uploaded and verified.

[alcuadrado]

We are about to publish the biggest release of Buidler so far. We'll get back to this once that's done.

[mudgen]

@alcuadrado That seems exciting. I look forward to reading and using the big release coming out soon. Is it getting published this week?

[alcuadrado]

Yep. This week 🚀

[dexcell]

Wow thank you

[PaulRBerg]

Hey @alcuadrado, it looks like the repo has just been renamed to hardhat. First off, congrats! This seems to be a big milestone.

Has this bug been addresses in the latest version? Or is it still pending?

[fvictorio]

Not yet! But with the changes in this release, tackling this issue should be possible 😄

[dexcell]

Thank God it was renamed to hardhat, would be more easier to type on command line and more easier google search for issues.

[mudgen]

Not yet! But with the changes in this release, tackling this issue should be possible 😄

Great. Is it going to be tackled soon?

[PaulRBerg]

As an interim solution, it looks like we could use solt. It's compatible with any development framework and it's using the same trick as hardhat-etherscan, that is, Solidity's standard json format.

[alcuadrado]

FYI: We are already working on this, and a fix should be available in a couple of days.

[alcuadrado]

We just released a new version of the plugin which improves on this as far as it can be done. Take a look at this comment for more info: #670 (comment)

[Skyge]

@abcoathup Hi, have you tried to verify again with the new release, I meet another problem and now can not verify contract, error message:

TypeError: Cannot read property 'contracts' of undefined
    at SimpleTaskDefinition.verify (/Users/ERC20-Token/node_modules/@nomiclabs/hardhat-etherscan/src/index.ts:281:25)

My package version is "@nomiclabs/hardhat-etherscan": "^2.1.0",

[alcuadrado]

Try upgrading hardhat.

[Skyge]

Yeah, you are right, all is fine now, thanks a lot!