Fix open zeppelin proxy detection

[portdeveloper]

Description

This PR adds support for detecting OpenZeppelin proxies by uncommenting and implementing the OpenZeppelin implementation slot detection logic in the detectProxyTarget function.

Changes made:

1. Uncommented the OPEN_ZEPPELIN_IMPLEMENTATION_SLOT constant.
2. Added a new detectUsingOpenZeppelinSlot function to check for OpenZeppelin proxies.
3. Included the new detection method in the primary detection methods array.

Additional Information

• I have read the contributing docs (if this is your first contribution)
• This is not a duplicate of any existing pull request

Related Issues

Fixes #154

Your ENS/address: portdev.eth

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
abi-ninja-v2	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Sep 13, 2024 2:44pm

[Pabl0cks]

Nice catch! Thanks for tackling it so fast.

Now it detects the proxy nicely for USDC in mainnet, but I got a question there.

In etherscan read proxy you can read the balance of an account nicely (0x4bBB30C26AEB7ABDBFb937D5C206CC29f9706323) but not in abi ninja

It seems like if we are querying directly the implementation address, like etherscan does here

Also if you open USDC mainnet in abi ninja and select a method, the URL reloads to the implementation address

[portdeveloper]

@Pabl0cks thanks for the feedback!
I have just checked the main branch and this problem exists there too.

Merging in https://github.com/BuidlGuidl/abi.ninja/tree/feat/getsourcecode fixes that problem as well as improving the overall app.

Here is a deployment link for that branch if you'd like to test:
https://abi-ninja-v2-git-feat-getsourcecode-buidlguidldao.vercel.app/

My suggestion here would be, since the problem exists on prod deployment as well, is either:
-> merge this, i open a new pr for getsourcecode, merge that
-> I close this and make getsourcecode + this as one new pr

How do those options sound? Happy to hear any ideas!

[technophile-04]

I think the changes makes sense, btw @portdeveloper do you remember why we commented that OZ slot? I don't remember any discussion on that :/.

Nevertheless I think we can merge this just added a small comment and create a new PR for getSourceCode branch

[Pabl0cks]

Ok! I also agree is a good idea to merge this and then test nicely the getsourcecode PR and merge it when looks good.

I will document the issue just to make sure we verify it in the new PR 🙏

[portdeveloper]

I don't remember the exact reason why we commented it out (might be related to when we separated the logic)
But when we merge getsourcecode PR we will remove these all!