Proxy Contract pointing the wrong implementation contract

Support Upgrades
, , ,
1

Question

Hey, I faced 2 weird behaviors in OpenZeppelin ERC1155 Upgradable Contract. I Have two ERC1155 uups upgradable contract in hardhat. The code in both the contract are same, only difference is the name of the two contracts. The byte code of the two contracts are exactly same.
Let's say the two smart contracts name are Contract-A and Contract-B. And i have two Externally owned Address (EOA) namely EOA-1 and EOA-2.

Weird Behavior 1:

I run the script to deploy Contract-A. the script deploys the implementation and proxy contract in the network successfully without any issues. then i try to verify the deployed contract in hardhat. it shows the error "Two contracts have same bytecode. please mention the contract name". then only I realized that the two contract with same code have same bytecode. but it's not the weird behaviors i faced. The actually weird behavior I faced was I run the script to deploy Contract-B. the script deploys only the proxy of Contract-B, the implementation not deployed but the proxy points the implementation of Contract-A.

[i think it happen because the both contract have same bytecode in the hardhat]

Weird Behavior 2:

I run the script to deploy Contract-A with my EOA-1. the script deploys the implementation and proxy contract in the network successfully without any issues.
then i run i run the script to deploy Contract-A with EOA-2. the script deploys only the proxy of Contract-A and the proxy points to the implementation of Contract-A deployed by EOA-1.

[i think it happen because the both contract have same bytecode in the hardhat]

Please, Explain me the reason behind the two weird behaviors and also tell me the solution to overcome this issue.

:computer: Environment

Hardhat
Goerli and Mumbai Testnets
OpenZeppelin UUPS Upgradable contracts

Folder and File structure of the projrcts are below:

Screenshot (181)
Screenshot (181)1920×1080 303 KB

"mau-rewards" and "referral-rewards" are the two contracts with same bytecode.

2

Though probably unrelated to your question, this cannot be the case.

If the two contracts have two different names, then the two bytecodes cannot be the same, since the name of a contract impacts the metadata part of its bytecode (last 64 bytes if I remember correctly).

Same goes for the documentation inside each contract, the compiler settings used for compiling each contract, and even the path and name of the file where the source code of each contract is located.

Other than that, please share the deployment script (in plaintext, no screenshots or images) so that one can investigate further (rather than sharing VS release notes, which aren't very useful in this context).

3

The default behaviour of the Hardhat Upgrades plugin is that when deploying a proxy, it will reuse a previously deployed implementation if the bytecode is exactly the same as the new proxy's implementation.

If you want it to always redeploy the implementation (even if bytecode is the same), you can use the redeployImplementation option with redeployImplementation: "always".

For example:

const instance = await upgrades.deployProxy(MyContract, [<initializer args>], { redeployImplementation: "always" });
4

Thanks for answering my question :innocent:...

5

even after using the redeployImplementation option with redeployImplementation: "always", the new proxy reuse the previously deployed implementation.

6

Can you ensure you are using the latest version of the plugin?
If you still have this issue, please provide the information listed here so that we can look into this further: Required information when requesting support for Upgrades Plugins