Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Solidity 0.5 Version: Alien Codex - Requesting new instance loop #157

Closed
bergarces opened this issue Dec 3, 2019 · 6 comments
Closed

Solidity 0.5 Version: Alien Codex - Requesting new instance loop #157

bergarces opened this issue Dec 3, 2019 · 6 comments

Comments

@bergarces
Copy link
Contributor

bergarces commented Dec 3, 2019

馃捇 Environment
Solidity 0.5 Version of Ethernaut (https://solidity-05.ethernaut.openzeppelin.com/)
Ubuntu 19.10
Chrome Version 78.0.3904.108 (Official Build) (64-bit)
MetaMask 7.6.1

馃摑 Details
When attempting to get a new instance for the Alien Codex level (19), it seems like a new transaction attempt to create a contract is issued after the previous one is mined successfully.

No other level seems to have this issue.

EthernautAlienCodexError

馃敘 Steps to reproduce
Press the "Get new instance" button on the Alien Codex level (19) of Ethernaut with Solidity 0.5 and confirm the transaction with MetaMask.

@abcoathup
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks, I have the same experience with Alien Codex level.

@CallMeGwei
Copy link
Member

I'm also having this issue.

@CallMeGwei
Copy link
Member

CallMeGwei commented Mar 22, 2020

Workaround:

The contract is being created successfully. That fact, however, is not being registered in local storage.

One may manually edit the browser's local storage as a temporary workaround. (Accessing local storage data can be done in dev tools.)

image

Add the appropriate key:value pair to the ethernaut_player_data_*VERSION*_*PLAYER*.emittedLevels
object.

image

The level key is "0xf0D6F7dA4ed4Ff54761841e497F5aFc795F04688" and the value will be the instance contract address, which can be retrieved from etherscan via the tx hash.

@sacredwx
Copy link

same here

@xaler5
Copy link
Collaborator

xaler5 commented Nov 17, 2022

Is still this an issue ?

@xaler5
Copy link
Collaborator

xaler5 commented Dec 25, 2022

works for me
image
closing this since we already optimized local storage management . fell free to reopen if still an issue

@xaler5 xaler5 closed this as completed Dec 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants