Deployment of a valid contract with invalid constructor succeeds

[lacabra]

As the title says, when deploying a valid secret contract bytecode with an invalid constructor, such as Fn='not a valid construct()';, the deployment succeeds, seemingly ignoring the constructor function passed as an argument.

Is this the intended behavior, or should it fail?

[moriaab]

@lacabra To reproduce the behavior I need some clarifications:

1. Does the valid contract have a constructor. It is better if you point me to the real contract.
2. What is this: Fn='not a valid construct()' ? Is this a decrypted callable?
3. Please give me the relevant inputs, at least callable and arguments

[elichai]

I think he meant the opposite, that he passed an invalid constructor and it didn't fail.

[lacabra]

Correct, I passed an invalid constructor, and it didn't fail. Take any contract, and pass the following:

Callable='whatever-you-want-here-that-is-not-a-valid-construct-function'
Args=[]

[lacabra]

In the integration tests, run the following tests in this order:

1. 01_init.spec.js
2. 03_deploy_fail_constructor.spec.js

And the deployment does not fail as expected, but instead it succeeds.

[moriaab]

This defect is planned to be fixed as part of general improvement of treating wrong inputs for deployment and computation of secret contracts.