matter-labs / block-explorer Goto Github PK

🌟 Adding $ZF to zkSync Era token list - zkSwap Finance

📝 Description

We'd like to request adding our token $ZF to zkSync Era token list: https://explorer.zksync.io/tokenlist

Token address: 0x31C2c031fDc9d33e974f327Ab0d9883Eae06cA4A
Token name / Project name: zkSwap Finance
Security & Audit report: https://docs.zkswap.finance/usdzf-token/security-and-audits

🤔 Rationale

1. Significant Token Price Performance: zkSwap Finance token - $ZF, has recently achieved a new All Time High, killed another zero in its price and going trending across social medias

Notable TVL growth:

• +140% (1M change)
• +88.5% (7D Change)
• Total TVL $1.3M, ranked 13th on zkSync
• Impressive Vol: ~800K Daily, and keep increasing

2. Attract potential users: Following the hype of our achievement, the listing of $ZF on zkSync Era will potentially enhance liquidity and trading activity, benefiting both the zkSwap Finance community and users of zkSync.

📋 Additional Context

We'd like to discuss further potential partnership opportunities upon listing our token. Our BD - Christ would love to connect with you all
His contact for discussion: https://t.me/zkSwap_Christ

Best Regards,
zkSwap Finance

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

can you please add the name for the contract that we interacted?
let say i swap using Syncswap ETH > USDC.
instead of smart contract code, we will see the name from/to contract name that we interacted

🤔 Rationale

just like etherscan explorer, it would be much better for us to read the transaction goes to

📋 Additional Context

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

Contracts with the exact same deployed bytecode can be verified by hardhat but cannot be verified on explorer.

Test contract verified by hardhat: https://sepolia.explorer.zksync.io/address/0x1097f8a418d36e3aB3A1B386A7977F67672Ec4Fc

Contract with the same deployed bytecode: https://sepolia.explorer.zksync.io/address/0x121f49040C4Ed3FA766557b6989B88aa3ea82082

The zksolc version, solc version, contract name and contract code are all copied from https://sepolia.explorer.zksync.io/address/0x1097f8a418d36e3aB3A1B386A7977F67672Ec4Fc , but explorer states that the deployed bytecode is not equal to generated one from given source.

Provide a clear and concise description of the bug.

🔄 Reproduction Steps

Deploy a contract using zksolc v1.4.0 and solc 0.8.9. Then try to verify it on explorer.

🤔 Expected Behavior

The contract can be verified.

😯 Current Behavior

The contract cannot be verified.

🖥️ Environment

Any relevant environment details.

📋 Additional Context

Add any other context about the problem here. If applicable, add screenshots to help explain.

📎 Log Output

Paste any relevant log output here.

🌟 Feature Request

I would like to formally request the addition of a feature or mark that aids users in easily identifying and locating not only previously deployed smart contracts but also other transaction types. Additionally, considering the observed difference in the "To" tab's content, it would be beneficial to align the representation of transactions in Zksync Explorer with a more user-friendly and descriptive format, akin to other blockchain explorers

📝 Description

I'm facing challenges in locating not only smart contracts but also other transaction types that I've initiated in Zksync Explorer. On other blockchain explorers finding verified contracts or other transactions is straightforward – I can scroll and check the "To" tab, where information such as "Create" or other descriptive sentences indicates the nature of the transaction. However, in Zksync Explorer, not only is there a lack of a distinctive mark or feature to help me find previously deployed smart contracts or identify other transaction types, but there's also a notable difference. While there is a "To" tab on the homepage similar to other block explorers, its contents don't consist of sentences but rather smart contracts or other transaction types. In other blockchains, transactions are often presented in a more descriptive sentence format.

🤔 Rationale

The proposed feature enhancements in transaction representation and discovery in Zksync Explorer are crucial for several reasons:

1. Improved User Experience:

   • Enhancing the representation of smart contracts and various transaction types in a more descriptive format, akin to other blockchain explorers, will significantly improve the overall user experience. Users will be able to quickly and intuitively identify and understand the nature of their transactions.

2. Efficient Navigation:

   • The addition of a feature or mark for previously deployed smart contracts and other transaction types, along with a user-friendly "To" tab, will streamline the process of navigating through transactions. This is particularly important for users who want to review or verify specific types of transactions quickly.

3. Alignment with Industry Standards:

   • Aligning the representation of transactions with industry standards observed in other blockchain explorers ensures consistency across different platforms. This helps users transition seamlessly between different blockchain ecosystems.

4. Enhanced Accessibility:

   • Making transaction types, such as Mint NFT or Swap, more distinguishable in the Zksync Explorer ensures enhanced accessibility for users with varying levels of experience. This aligns with the project's commitment to being user-friendly and inclusive.

5. Community Satisfaction:

   • Addressing this feature request not only fulfills the needs of individual users but contributes to the overall satisfaction of the Zksync community. A more intuitive and user-friendly interface is likely to garner positive feedback and foster a sense of community trust.

In summary, implementing these feature enhancements is essential to elevate the Zksync Explorer's usability, align with industry norms, and cater to the diverse needs of the user community. It directly contributes to the project's goal of providing a seamless and efficient blockchain exploration experience.

📋 Additional Context

• I attempted scrolling and searching for keywords like "create," but found no relevant information.
• Unfortunately, I cannot provide the name and address of the smart contract or specific transactions as I have forgotten.

screenshot

🚨 The automated release from the 1.x branch failed. 🚨

I recommend you give this issue a high priority, so other packages depending on you can benefit from your bug fixes and new features again.

You can find below the list of errors reported by semantic-release. Each one of them has to be resolved in order to automatically publish your package. I’m sure you can fix this 💪.

Errors are usually caused by a misconfiguration or an authentication problem. With each error reported below you will find explanation and guidance to help you to resolve it.

Once all the errors are resolved, semantic-release will release your package the next time you push a commit to the 1.x branch. You can also manually restart the failed CI job that runs semantic-release.

If you are not sure how to resolve this, here are some links that can help you:

• Usage documentation
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Support channels

If those don’t help, or if this issue is reporting something you think isn’t right, you can always ask the humans behind semantic-release.

The release 1.0.0 on branch 1.x cannot be published as it is out of range.

Based on the releases published on other branches, only versions within the range >=1.0.0 <1.0.0 can be published from branch 1.x.

The following commits are responsible for the invalid release:

• feat: release workflow (4ae0e22)
• feat: api e2e tests workflow (#3) (69e6b82)
• feat: validate pr workflow (#2) (04987a2)
• chore: fix app typecheck task (1f14ff5)
• fix: docker images (92df138)
• fix: move up prettierrc (47cd1c6)
• fix: move common prettier config (a3c4bc2)
• chore: add commit-msg (a51fac4)
• add commitlint (022c0ad)
• fix lint (dcd2cdc)
• fix lint (fc97f98)
• fix lint (202288a)
• feat: add husky (a62ae17)
• feat: setup monorepo for block explorer (cd6c710)
• Initial commit (2cc9c2a)

Those commits should be moved to a valid branch with git merge or git cherry-pick and removed from branch 1.x with git revert or git reset.

A valid branch could be main.

See the workflow configuration documentation for more details.

Good luck with your project ✨

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

When batch is executed it's commit tx hash is displayed in the left column, but prove, exucute tx hashes and timestamps - in the right column.

🔄 Reproduction Steps

https://explorer.zksync.io/batch/262284

🤔 Expected Behavior

Batch commit, prove and execute tx hashes and timestamps to be displayed in the same column.

😯 Current Behavior

Currently when batch is executed, commit tx hash is shown in the left column, the rest hashes and timestamps - in the right column.

🖥️ Environment

All envs

📋 Additional Context

📝 Description
I propose integrating ABI information directly into the zkSync Explorer to enhance user experience and simplify contract interaction.

🤔 Rationale
This feature is crucial as it streamlines the process for developers and users alike. Currently, relying on encoded data through the CLI is cumbersome and time-consuming. By including ABI information in the zkSync Explorer, users can easily access contract details and interact with contracts more efficiently.

📋 Additional Context
I have explored an alternative solution using encoded data through the CLI, but it is not practical and adds complexity to the coding process. Integrating ABI information directly into the zkSync Explorer would significantly improve the user experience and streamline contract interaction.

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

The explorer API incorrectly reports that a proxy smart contract isn't a proxy.

Online block explorer reports that a proxy smart contract is a proxy:
https://explorer.zksync.io/address/0x5A7d6b2F92C77FAD6CCaBd7EE0624E64907Eaf3E#contract

But the explorer API reports that the same smart contract is NOT a proxy:
https://block-explorer-api.mainnet.zksync.io/api?module=contract&action=getsourcecode&address=0x5A7d6b2F92C77FAD6CCaBd7EE0624E64907Eaf3E

            "Proxy": "0",
            "Implementation": "",

🔄 Reproduction Steps

1. Search for a proxy smart contract in the online explorer (https://explorer.zksync.io/). The explorer will show that the contract is a proxy.
2. Search for the same smart contract via the API (https://block-explorer-api.mainnet.zksync.io/api). The response will indicate that the same contract is not a proxy.

🤔 Expected Behavior

The API response should indicate that the proxy smart contract is a proxy ("Proxy": "1"). It should also return the address of the implementation contract ("Implementation").

😯 Current Behavior

The API response indicates that the proxy smart contract is NOT a proxy ("Proxy": "0"). It also doesn't return any implementation contract address ("Implementation": "").

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

We are aware of a large amount of sybil activity on the zkSync main net. On the surface, we guess this is automated/bot activity for individuals looking to qualify for some expected future airdrop of the zkSync governance token.

A week ago, we launched a zkSync whale tracker called zkWilly (https://twitter.com/zkwilly). We process mainnet transactions to detect and report on large transactions.

Whilst looking at the data we process, we have been noticing a lot of potential sybil behaviour where a string of connected accounts transfer amounts between themselves, supposedly to try and qualify for some suspected airdrop in future.

If this data/processing could be of assistance to zkSync then we would be happy to share 🤝

🤔 Rationale

Identification of on-chain sybil activity can be valuable to bolster analytics and preventative mechanisms.

📋 Additional Context

Not a feature per se, but an interesting topic potentially.

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

The Get Logs endpoint (https://block-explorer-api.mainnet.zksync.io/docs#/Logs%20API/ApiController_getLogs) requires an address. On the Etherscan family of APIs, address is optional (example query)

Querying without an address is useful when I'm looking for logs from proxy contracts, where the cardinality of contracts is extremely high (or maybe even unknown)

🔄 Reproduction Steps

Query I would have expected to work: https://block-explorer-api.mainnet.zksync.io/api?&module=logs&action=getLogs&offset=1000&fromBlock=12689376&toBlock=12788055&topic0=0x141df868a6331af528e38c83b7aa03edc19be66e37ae67f9285bf4f8e3c6a1a8

Currently throws: {"status":"0","message":"NOTOK","result":"Error! Invalid address format"}

🤔 Expected Behavior

😯 Current Behavior

🖥️ Environment

📋 Additional Context

🌟 Feature Request

adding multi-language support

📝 Description

Having multi-language support in Explorer will provide a better and more understandable interface for users.

Provide a clear and concise description of the feature you'd like to see.

🤔 Rationale

Explain why this feature is important and how it benefits the project.

Having multi-language support will make it more accessible to users.

📋 Additional Context

Add any other context or information about the feature request here.

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

Would like to have a Charts & Statistics page like Etherscan's, and visualizing data with charts as below, if not all.

• Daily Transactions Chart
• Unique Addresses Chart
• Average Block Time Chart
• Average Gas Price Chart
• Average Gas Limit Chart
• Daily Gas Used Chart
• Block Count and Rewards Chart
• Average Transaction Fee Chart

🤔 Rationale

This is a necessary standard of visualization on how the zkSync chain is performing.
Blockscouts zkSync Explorer is also having these charts available.

📋 Additional Context

Add any other context or information about the feature request here.

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

Paymaster contract can take fees in ERC20 token. Add info about these fees to the Fee section on transaction page.

🤔 Rationale

Currently these fees are shown in Tokens Transferred section, but other transfers are also shown there. It'll be more convenient to see these fees separately in Fee section.

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

I would like to propose a feature for the zkSync block explorer that automatically verifies all instances of a child contract once the initial instance has been verified. Currently, on zkSync, each deployment of a child contract created by a factory contract requires individual verification. This process can be quite repetitive and time-consuming, especially for projects that frequently deploy new instances of the same contract e.g. a pool contract created by a pool factory.

🤔 Rationale

The rationale behind this feature is to streamline the developer experience and reduce the redundancy in the contract verification process. On Etherscan, once a contract is verified, all subsequent deployments of the same contract (with the same bytecode) are automatically recognized and marked as verified. This approach significantly eases the burden on developers, as they don’t need to repeatedly verify each instance of a contract that has already been verified once. Adopting a similar feature in the zkSync block explorer would greatly enhance usability and efficiency, particularly for projects involving factory patterns or multiple deployments of identical contracts.

📋 Additional Context

This feature would be particularly beneficial in environments where contracts are frequently cloned or deployed en masse, such as in DeFi projects, NFT collections, or any other application utilizing factory contracts for creating multiple instances of the same contract. The current requirement to verify each deployed instance separately can act as a bottleneck and deter developers from utilizing zkSync to its full potential. Implementing this feature would align zkSync's developer tools more closely with industry standards and improve its overall attractiveness as a Layer 2 solution.

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

Add "View all" at the end of Latest Transactions table (if there are more available)

We could add same for Latest Batches

🤔 Rationale

When there are not a lot of transactions on the chain (eg when running clean local setup), people may think these are all existing transactions on the chain. People aren't aware that to see all transaction they need to go to "Block Explorer" -> "Transactions" cause it is pretty hidden.

📋 Additional Context

That's feedback from zkQuest

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

Currently, both verified and non-verified contracts are shown by the block explorer the same.

User should click on "contract" page to see whether a contract is verified or not.

Etherscan shows a green checkmark in case a contract is verified, so an user can know that before clicking on "contract" page.

🤔 Rationale

While looking into the contract I want to know in advance whether contract is verified, otherwise I wouldn't spend time on clicking "contract" page to check raw bytecode. This feature is also make user experience more similar to Etherscan one, that is beneficial for users that used to L1 block explorer.

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

Currently when you visit the "Token" page it hits the CoinGecko API and provides a list of tokens. However most the tokens returned to the first page are random tokens.

Understandably the CoinGecko API payload is exactly that but we should place the common tokens of known contract addresses on the first page.

🤔 Rationale

When developing certain projects, or testing sometimes you require a specific token address (e.g. DIA). It is very difficult to find token addresses for our network. They are not mentioned in the docs, and the BE tokens page has a list of many tokens with that same name.

To avoid confusion, and since we know the contract addresses of the correct common tokens we should have these always be on the first page.

📋 Additional Context

Add any other context or information about the feature request here.

Multi language support urgently needed in mobile explorer as fully explained in this issue.

matter-labs/zksync-web-era-docs#916

Which is actually here.

More multi language needed in the explorer

https://explorer.zksync.io/

(like CN,German,Spain Etc)

more languages can be added

Reason :

Supporting multiple languages in a blockchain explorer(Zksync) only (1) apart from EN (which is English) enhances accessibility for users globally, allowing them to navigate and understand transaction details, smart contract interactions, and other information in their preferred language
(This is very important and needed) . As stated above.
Only 2 languages is quite small as observed in the image

**Hope the developers that sees this resolve this issue ASAP **

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

• When start to run docker-compose.yaml by docker-compose up, met erroras below

🔄 Reproduction Steps

• docker-compose up

🤔 Expected Behavior

work's fine

Env Info

• Docker version 24.0.5, build 24.0.5-0ubuntu1~22.04.1
• docker-compose version 1.29.2, build unknown

📎 Log Output

worker_1        | npm ERR! code ENOENT
worker_1        | npm ERR! syscall open
worker_1        | npm ERR! path /usr/src/app/packages/worker/packages/worker/package.json
worker_1        | npm ERR! errno -2
worker_1        | npm ERR! enoent ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/usr/src/app/packages/worker/packages/worker/package.json'
worker_1        | npm ERR! enoent This is related to npm not being able to find a file.
worker_1        | npm ERR! enoent 
worker_1        | 
worker_1        | npm ERR! A complete log of this run can be found in: /home/node/.npm/_logs/2024-01-19T03_38_37_178Z-debug-0.log



app_1           | npm ERR! code ENOENT
app_1           | npm ERR! syscall open
app_1           | npm ERR! path /usr/src/app/packages/app/dist/packages/app/package.json
app_1           | npm ERR! errno -2
app_1           | npm ERR! enoent ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/usr/src/app/packages/app/dist/packages/app/package.json'
app_1           | npm ERR! enoent This is related to npm not being able to find a file.
app_1           | npm ERR! enoent 
app_1           | 
app_1           | npm ERR! A complete log of this run can be found in: /home/node/.npm/_logs/2024-01-19T03_40_58_503Z-debug-0.log
zksync-era-block-explorer_app_1 exited with code 254
api_1           | npm ERR! code ENOENT
api_1           | npm ERR! syscall open
api_1           | npm ERR! path /usr/src/app/packages/api/packages/api/package.json
api_1           | npm ERR! errno -2
api_1           | npm ERR! enoent ENOENT: no such file or directory, open '/usr/src/app/packages/api/packages/api/package.json'
api_1           | npm ERR! enoent This is related to npm not being able to find a file.
api_1           | npm ERR! enoent 
api_1           | 

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

Im trying to write to the contract using the explorer

🔄 Reproduction Steps

Steps to reproduce the behaviour

1. Go to a contract like: https://sepolia.explorer.zksync.io/address/0xd098b00477FCFB3D452a9Faa7D418AAbb4Bf210b
2. Go to a contract then the write tab
3. Fill in spender and value
4. Click write (after connecting the wallet)

🤔 Expected Behavior

Expect it to write the approve wtih 2 arguments to the contract

😯 Current Behavior

Missing an argument for writing to the contract

🖥️ Environment

Chrome

📋 Additional Context

I think the problem is the input not getting to the transaction function, so both are filled in but not reaching the method to write to the contract (could be that the name value is in the way) BEcause the error saying it expects 2 arguments but get 1 argument.

📎 Log Output

missing argument: passed to contract (count=1, expectedCount=2, code=MISSING_ARGUMENT, version=contracts/5.7.0)

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

❯ npx zksync-cli dev start

Starting: Dockerized node, Block Explorer...
[+] Running 3/3
 ✔ Container local-setup-postgres-1  Created                                                                                                                                            0.0s 
 ✔ Container local-setup-geth-1      Created                                                                                                                                            0.0s 
 ✔ Container local-setup-zksync-1    Created                                                                                                                                            0.0s 
[+] Running 5/5
 ✔ Volume "zkcli-block-explorer_postgres"     Created                                                                                                                                   0.0s 
 ✔ Container zkcli-block-explorer-worker-1    Started                                                                                                                                   0.1s 
 ✔ Container zkcli-block-explorer-postgres-1  Started                                                                                                                                   0.1s 
 ✔ Container zkcli-block-explorer-api-1       Started                                                                                                                                   0.0s 
 ✔ Container zkcli-block-explorer-app-1       Started                                                                                                                                   0.0s 
✔ Block Explorer initialized

Dockerized node started:
 - zkSync Node (L2):
  - Chain ID: 270
  - RPC URL: http://127.0.0.1:3050
 - Ethereum Node (L1):
  - Chain ID: 9
  - RPC URL: http://127.0.0.1:8545
 - Rich accounts: /home/harald/.local/state/zksync-cli/modules/zkcli-dockerized-node/local-setup/rich-wallets.json

Block Explorer started v2.36.1:
 - App: http://localhost:3010
 - HTTP API:
  - Endpoint: http://localhost:3020
  - Documentation: http://localhost:3020/docs

No transactions shown in explorer..

🔄 Reproduction Steps

❯ npx zksync-cli dev config

choose Dockerized node with Block Explorer

❯ npx zksync-cli dev start

On Linux edit $HOME//.local/state/zksync-cli/modules/zkcli-block-explorer/docker-compose.yml and apply the fix of matter-labs/zkcli-block-explorer#9 until merged and restart the environment.

🤔 Expected Behavior

Transactions showing up in the explorer

😯 Current Behavior

None

🖥️ Environment

Running on Linux.

❯ docker -v
Docker version 24.0.7, build afdd53b

Version: v2.36.

📎 Log Output

[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.932 [NestFactory] Starting Nest application... +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.968 [InstanceLoader] TypeOrmModule dependencies initialized +35ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.976 [InstanceLoader] MetricsModule dependencies initialized +8ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.976 [InstanceLoader] HttpModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.977 [InstanceLoader] PrometheusModule dependencies initialized +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.977 [InstanceLoader] DiscoveryModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.977 [InstanceLoader] ConfigHostModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.977 [InstanceLoader] TerminusModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.978 [InstanceLoader] EventEmitterModule dependencies initialized +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.978 [InstanceLoader] ConfigModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.978 [InstanceLoader] ConfigModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.983 [InstanceLoader] JsonRpcProviderModule dependencies initialized +5ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:45.985 [InstanceLoader] HealthModule dependencies initialized +2ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.136 [InstanceLoader] TypeOrmCoreModule dependencies initialized +151ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.137 [InstanceLoader] TypeOrmModule dependencies initialized +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.137 [InstanceLoader] TypeOrmModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.137 [InstanceLoader] UnitOfWorkModule dependencies initialized +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.139 [InstanceLoader] CounterModule dependencies initialized +2ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.140 [InstanceLoader] AppModule dependencies initialized +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.156 [RoutesResolver] PrometheusController {/metrics}: +16ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.158 [RouterExplorer] Mapped {/metrics, GET} route +2ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.159 [RoutesResolver] HealthController {/health}: +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.159 [RouterExplorer] Mapped {/health, GET} route +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.159 [RoutesResolver] HealthController {/ready}: +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.160 [RouterExplorer] Mapped {/ready, GET} route +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.182 [NestApplication] Nest application successfully started +22ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.186 [AppService] _lock created, running migrations if there are any to run +4ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.705 [AppService] _lock removed, migrations completed +519ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.791 [BlockProcessor] Adding block #0 - {"blockNumber":0} +86ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.792 [BlockProcessor] Adding block #1 - {"blockNumber":1} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.792 [BlockProcessor] Adding block #2 - {"blockNumber":2} +0ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.797 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":1} +5ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.798 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":0} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.800 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":2} +2ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.801 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":3} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.837 [CounterProcessor] Getting next records from the DB to update counters - {"tableName":"transfers","startingFromNumber":0} +36ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.840 [CounterProcessor] Getting next records from the DB to update counters - {"tableName":"transactions","startingFromNumber":0} +3ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.855 [BalanceService] Deleting old balances - {"fromBlockNumber":-1,"toBlockNumber":0} +15ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:46.862 [BalanceService] Deleting zero balances - {"fromBlockNumber":-1,"toBlockNumber":0} +7ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.261 [Contract] Requested contract function symbol failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"symbol()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x95d89b41","to":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e"}}} +399ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.261 [TokenService] Cannot parse ERC20 contract. Might be a token of a different type. - {"contractAddress":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e"} +0ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.262 [Contract] Requested contract function symbol failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"symbol()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x95d89b41","to":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.263 [TokenService] Cannot parse ERC20 contract. Might be a token of a different type. - {"contractAddress":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78"} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.264 [Contract] Requested contract function decimals failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"decimals()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x313ce567","to":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.265 [Contract] Requested contract function name failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"name()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x06fdde03","to":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.265 [TokenService] Cannot parse ERC20 contract. Might be a token of a different type. - {"contractAddress":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF"} +0ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.266 [Contract] Requested contract function name failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"name()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x06fdde03","to":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.267 [Contract] Requested contract function name failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"name()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x06fdde03","to":"0xd07d77e5f1b80a7BA2D07Cfd6FF97f4149eBf35e"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.268 [Contract] Requested contract function symbol failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"symbol()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x95d89b41","to":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.268 [Contract] Requested contract function decimals failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"decimals()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x313ce567","to":"0x58719fC8F019cBcb64604D38b3dfc58b499547fF"}}} +0ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.270 [Contract] Requested contract function decimals failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"decimals()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x313ce567","to":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c"}}} +2ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.271 [TokenService] Cannot parse ERC20 contract. Might be a token of a different type. - {"contractAddress":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c"} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.271 [Contract] Requested contract function symbol failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"symbol()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x95d89b41","to":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c"}}} +0ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.272 [Contract] Requested contract function name failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"name()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x06fdde03","to":"0x0040F89FE004fad14D9cA951560b8e4C08265b0c"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.273 [Contract] Requested contract function name failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"name()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x06fdde03","to":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.273 [TokenService] Cannot parse ERC20 contract. Might be a token of a different type. - {"contractAddress":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A"} +0ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.275 [Contract] Requested contract function decimals failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"decimals()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x313ce567","to":"0xFD106834e5fc159f85D8e453A3BF4e0db2F70B78"}}} +2ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.276 [Contract] Requested contract function decimals failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"decimals()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x313ce567","to":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Warn	12/12/2023 14:47:47.277 [Contract] Requested contract function symbol failed to execute, not retryable - {"contractAddress":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A","error":{"reason":null,"code":"CALL_EXCEPTION","method":"symbol()","data":"0x","errorArgs":null,"errorName":null,"errorSignature":null,"address":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A","args":[],"transaction":{"data":"0x95d89b41","to":"0x9D394314b7dFAa73aD2e2136fbDB908a74c9dA7A"}}} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.833 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":1} +556ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.835 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":2} +2ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.838 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":0} +3ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.839 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":0,"currentBatchState":3} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.869 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":1,"currentBatchState":3} +30ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:47.897 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":2,"currentBatchState":3} +28ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:48.850 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":2,"currentBatchState":0} +953ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:48.851 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":2,"currentBatchState":2} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:48.852 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":2,"currentBatchState":1} +1ms
[Worker] Info	12/12/2023 14:47:48.906 [BatchProcessor] Getting batch from the blockchain - {"batchNumber":2,"currentBatchState":3} +54ms
[...]

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

Revise on the current Token List to provide more functionalities & display more off-chain data provided by CoinGecko API.

Suggested Functionalities:

• Token Filtering based on ERC types
• Token Search based on Token Name or Symbol

Suggested additional information:

• Market Cap
• No. of holders

🤔 Rationale

Unlike Blockscout zkSync Explorer Token List, current Block Explorer Token List is lack of detail & functionalities

📋 Additional Context

Add any other context or information about the feature request here.

🌟 Feature Request

📝 Description

Existing table view data are all having pagination of page size 10.

• Blocks page
• Block Detail page
• Batches page
• Batch Detail page
• Transactions page
• Transaction Detail page
• Address Detail page => Transaction & Transfers Tab

Suggested additional page size:

• 10
• 20
• 50
• 100

🤔 Rationale

A pagination of selectable page size is practical & common to be supported.
e.g. https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x95222290dd7278aa3ddd389cc1e1d165cc4bafe5

📋 Additional Context

Add any other context or information about the feature request here.

🐛 Bug Report

📝 Description

I'm trying to verify a smart contract against a local network, but the smart contract verification piece isn't working. My setup works against test nets, but when running locally i get:

🔄 Reproduction Steps

Steps to reproduce the behaviour:

1. docker-compose up
2. Navigate to: http://localhost:3010/contracts/verify

🤔 Expected Behavior

Compilers combo boxes populated:

😯 Current Behavior

No info available:

🖥️ Environment

macOS, npm 20.10

📋 Additional Context

Add any other context about the problem here. If applicable, add screenshots to help explain.

📎 Log Output

Doesn't seem to be any errors in worker/app/api logs