Metamask-extension: Confirm button is not clickable

[Twibap]

i cannot send ether to my contract
is it relation with "MetaMask: web3 will be deprecated in the near future in favor of the ethereumProvider"??

if i change 'web3' to 'ethjs' in my dApp, not work "require()'

is there way to my contract user send ether to my contract method using metamask

this is my client script to send ether

var Web3 = require('web3');
var web3js = new Web3(web3.currentProvider);
var myContract = web3js.eth.contract(myContractABI).at(myContractAddress);

myContract.myMethod.sendTransaction( 
    argument, 
    {from:userAccount, value...}, 
    function(error, result){
        if(error != null)
            console.log(result);
        else
            console.error(error);
});

[williamchong]

Do the client have enough ETH to pay for the transaction?

[Dimazsever]

I have a similar problem.

[bdresser]

thanks for reporting @Twibap @Dimazsever.

Do you have enough ETH in Account 1 to cover the transaction? Also, what browser are you using?

is it relation with "MetaMask: web3 will be deprecated in the near future in favor of the ethereumProvider"??

This is a standard warning, doesn't affect your UI. Are there any other errors you see in the console?

[bdresser]

sounds like this could related to #4955

[jeffscottward]

When swithcing back to the old UI in the settings menu - I see
Transaction Error. Exception thrown in contract code.
when trying to create a TX.

A demo of ours that uses truffle-contract to create the contract object, is able to submit.

I think this may explain "Unknown Function" at the top of the new UI

@danfinlay / @bdresser

[bdresser]

@jeffscottward are you experiencing the same error as OP? are you sure you have enough ETH to send?

the "Unknown Function" is expected behavior - we'll show this when we can't lookup the function name in the method registry we're using.

[jeffscottward]

@bdresser - yes same issue. yes have enough ETH. understood re: UF

[jeffscottward]

MM @4.5.5 - submission works!
Still see that error though in the MM UI Execption thrown in contract code

[jennypollack]

hey @jeffscottward does the tx succeed after you submit from the older version of mm? would you mind linking the tx here?
The Transaction Error. Exception thrown in contract code. is from estimateGas and iirc in the old-ui we present this to the user but still allow them to submit (which is inline with what you're reporting from the older version) - sounds like in the new-ui that error is blocking

[Twibap]

i found cause in my case that using wrong contract address.
the error msg was effective
Thank you for help everyone!

[jtakalai]

@bdresser would it make sense to add 4byte.registry as a second option? They have a decent API, see e.g. https://www.4byte.directory/api/v1/signatures/?hex_signature=0x144f2f94

They currently list 75,659 signatures while the Parity contract lists 240 (according to https://etherscan.io/address/0x44691B39d1a75dC4E0A0346CBB15E310e6ED1E86#readContract)

[bdresser]

@jtakalai wow I had no idea the difference was that huge. We went with Partiy since it's nice to rely on decentralized infrastructure, but the 4byte registry makes a lot of sense as a fallback for more coverage.

[jtakalai]

Yea granted, it's a random service; although its return value would be simple to double-check:
1) ask eth-method-registry
1) if no luck, ask 4byte.registry. Check that the hash of the returned value is same as given signature

That way 4byte.registry at least shouldn't be able to form much of an attack vector even if it were pwned.

[bdresser]

@jtakalai makes sense to me - opened https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/issues/5057

[LenaStarikova]

Guys, I know it is a closed one, but I have the same on different computers :(
it's just there

[lamafab]

@LenaStarikova Make sure you have enough ETH in order to cover the gas cost (transaction fee). Might be nice for MetaMask to give the user a hint on why a transaction cannot be confirmed, though.