Contract simulation error, but transaction goes fine

[dalpii]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing issues

Package Version

1.2.9

Current Behavior

Sorry that I couldn't provide a fully working example as of right now.
I don't have that much experience with Solidity either, and I can't disclosure my full contract source because is from a client, so I can't even use the ABI on StackBlitz.

So, we refactor our dApp to use Viem, which went great! We're just having issue with a function that when I try to simulate, I'm getting:

ContractFunctionExecutionError: The contract function "depositERC" reverted with the following reason: SafeERC20: low-level call failed

I have checked all parameters, types, and even against our previous implementation with Ethers, and it all seems fine.

The strange part is that if I skip the simulation and go direct to write, the transaction goes just fine.

Here's the deployed contract from my client:
https://etherscan.io/address/0x48EAE4259EC1498Cc9092732EdC6e829611d42C3

And this is one of the transaction that simulation said it will be reverted, but it went fine:
https://etherscan.io/tx/0x40df85e3f68770717ce919e30e6f428d6de4a3c52c38ada4df1d5cd04ffa5341

I know that I'm asking maybe too much and giving so little details, it's more a way to check with you guys if this can be something on the library itself, or should I fault my clients contract.

We're writing directly to the contract for now just to avoid this error.

Thanks!

Expected Behavior

No response

Steps To Reproduce

Here some snippers from our code:

this.publicClient = createPublicClient({
      chain: mainnet,
      transport: http('https://eth-mainnet.g.alchemy.com/v2/...')
    })

const mainContract = getContract({
      abi: BBABI,
      address: '0x48EAE4259EC1498Cc9092732EdC6e829611d42C3',
      publicClient: this.publicClient
    })

// Trying to simulate before writing, throwing ContractFunctionExecutionError
const { request } = await mainContract.simulate.depositERC([
        amountUnit,
        currency.contract as `0x${string}`,
        currency.contractId,
        BigInt(userId)
      ])
      const hash = await this.walletClient.writeContract(request)


// Skipping simulation, and writing directly, transaction went fine
const hash = await this.walletClient.writeContract({
        address: '0x48EAE4259EC1498Cc9092732EdC6e829611d42C3',
        abi: BBABI,
        functionName: 'depositERC',
        args: [amountUnit, currency.contract as `0x${string}`, currency.contractId, BigInt(userId)]
      })

Here are some snippets from my client's contract:

import "@openzeppelin/contracts/token/ERC20/utils/SafeERC20.sol";
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;


function depositERC(
        uint256 amount,
        address tokenAddress,
        uint8 currency,
        uint256 userid
    ) external requireNotPaused nonReentrant {
        validateCurrency(tokenAddress, currency);
        IERC20 token = IERC20(tokenAddress);
        token.safeTransferFrom(
            msg.sender,
            address(this),
            amount
        );
        emit ERC20Deposited(msg.sender, amount, tokenAddress);
    }


function validateCurrency(
        address tokenAddress,
        uint8 currency
    ) private view {
        require(currency == 0 || currency == 2);

        if (currency == 0) {
            require(tokenAddress == WBTCAddress);
        } else if (currency == 2) {
            require(tokenAddress == USDCAddress);
        }
    }

Link to Minimal Reproducible Example (StackBlitz, CodeSandbox, GitHub repo etc.)

No response

Anything else?

No response

[jxom]

Does the same happen with another RPC?

[dalpii]

Just tried with transport: custom(window.ethereum) and got:

[jxom]

Interesting. Looks like that error is definitely coming from the contract, but I wonder what is triggering it. May you share the contract source so I can take a look?

Another thing to try: can you add your account to simulate?

const { request } = await mainContract.simulate.depositERC([
  amountUnit,
  currency.contract as `0x${string}`,
  currency.contractId,
  BigInt(userId)
+], { account })

[dalpii]

I can share the contract source with you privately if that's ok, otherwise need to ask some permissions (is from my client).

But, passing the account make the simulation works. The strange part is that we have a deposit function on the contract with will handle native token deposits, and that works fine without passing the account.

Is there a way to pass the account when creating the contract instance (something like we do for wallet clients)?

Thank you so much.

[jxom]

Could make sense for account to be inferred from the Wallet Client. Will move this to a discussion as it’s not really an issue, but definitely will continue to track.

[andyesp]

I was having a similar issue using simulate. The error was "Arithmic operation resulted in underflow or overflow." Fixed adding account as options in the simulate function.

[thanhvk]

@jxom, recently, I encountered the same issue, but I'm using wagmi version 1.4.12 and viem 1.19.11. The code worked well before. Do you have any idea about it?

[tmm]

If you want help, you need to provide a minimal reproduction with more info. What versions worked before? What issue are you running into now? Etc.

[thanhvk]

Thank you for the quick reply. This is my mistake because I haven't had enough funds.