BUG: Test failures for ElectionFactory.createElection due to function signature mismatch (ethers v6)

[Esar1212]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing issues

Issue Description ✍️

📌 Describe the Bug

On a fresh local setup, the test suite fails consistently when invoking ElectionFactory.createElection.

The failure appears to be caused by a mismatch between the Solidity function signature and the arguments used in the tests, which is surfaced when using ethers v6 (strict ABI fragment resolution).

🚨 Actual Behavior

Running the test suite results in the following error:

Error: no matching fragment (operation="fragment", key="createElection")

This error occurs across multiple test cases related to election creation and deletion.

The failure is triggered when tests attempt to call createElection without supplying all required parameters defined in the contract ABI.

🎯 Expected Behavior

The createElection function should be invoked with arguments that correctly match its Solidity signature, allowing the test suite to execute successfully without ABI resolution errors.

💡 Suggestions

Possible resolutions:

i) Update tests to pass a valid Election.Candidate[] argument, or

ii) Adjust the factory interface if the intended API has changed.

This issue is surfaced clearly when using ethers v6, which enforces strict ABI fragment matching.

I would be happy to work on a fix once aligned with the maintainers on the intended behavior.

Record

• I have synced all my node versions as mentioned in the project
• I am using the same version of npm as is the project
• My current branch is in sync with the development branch
• I want to work on this issue

[Esar1212]

I also shared this issue briefly in the Discord channel to check whether this is a known setup issue or an actual contract/test mismatch.

Now I've opened this GitHub issue to keep the discussion and resolution tracked in one place.

Happy to work on a fix and hoping this issue gets assigned to me after getting confirmed from the maintainers.

[Neurvinch]

@Ronnieraj37 hey Ronnie i am a proficient blockchain developer, I may work to make this as no dispute arsing one in production level!

[Esar1212]

@Ronnieraj37 hey Ronnie i am a proficient blockchain developer, I may work to make this as no dispute arsing one in production level!

Hi Naveen, thanks for your interest.

I’ve already been investigating this issue locally and outlined the root cause and potential fixes in the issue description. I’m planning to work on the solution and submit a PR once I get confirmation from the maintainers on the expected approach.

Happy to coordinate if the maintainers feel collaboration is needed.