metamask-extension
metamask-extension copied to clipboard
MetaMask
[Bug]: Get_block_hash_257335279069929 - Invalid pretty name for function name with the same signature
Describe the bug
When calling functions with 0x00000000 (and 0x00000001) as signature, metamask shows "Get_block_hash_257335279069929" as the pretty name. However, that's almost always not the case. For instance, here in this call: https://goerli.etherscan.io/tx/0xdec1fed4017b14cf3cba04c579b1333c4b508996c442e0a32cb266f2744e3593 It should be: mintEfficientN2M_001Z5BWH
But metamask shows Get_block_hash_257335279069929:
Expected behavior
When colliding, instead of just showing the first from the Ethereum Signature Database (I assume this is what you are doing): https://www.4byte.directory/signatures/?bytes4_signature=0x00000000&page=4
Either show a generic one, or, better, if the source code is available, get it to properly decode it.
Screenshots/Recordings
Steps to reproduce
- Call a function with a colliding signature.
Error messages or log output
No response
Version
11.7.3
Build type
None
Browser
Chrome
Operating system
MacOS
Hardware wallet
No response
Additional context
No response
Severity
No response
Hello, @nfts2me! Thank you for bringing this up! Our team is looking into it!
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 90 days. It will be closed in 45 days if there is no further activity. The MetaMask team intends on reviewing this issue before close, and removing the stale label if it is still a bug. We welcome new comments on this issue. We do not intend on closing issues if they report bugs that are still reproducible. Thank you for your contributions.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
The issue is still present.
I'd like to propose the option to just show the signature (like 0x00000000) instead of the pretty name is there is colision. The best would be to check the smart contract if it is verified, but otherwise showing just the signature would be a better option and not a misleading one. Specially with 0x00000000.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity in the last 90 days. It will be closed in 45 days if there is no further activity. The MetaMask team intends on reviewing this issue before close, and removing the stale label if it is still a bug. We welcome new comments on this issue. We do not intend on closing issues if they report bugs that are still reproducible. Thank you for your contributions.
Hello, @nfts2me! Thank you for bringing this up! Our team is looking into it!
No news?