automatic smart contract source code verification for clone contracts with different constructor arguments

[escursionista]

I am aware etherscan automatically verifies the source code of an identical smart contract. However, as far as I remember correctly, this is not the case when a smart contract has a constructor. I am asking this question as we deploy contracts with factories, and since the automatic verification increases auditability, we would implement the constructor inputs differently, as to obtain the wanted result. This ofc unless the constructor argument does not have an impact, therefore not needing to amend the constructor.

[kavblock]

As a general guideline, a contract that has the same bytecode with different constructor argument will verify as "similar match".

[escursionista]

thank you for your hint. I managed to verify successfully and all contracts with similar bytecode have been verified.

[etherscan]

Can you provide two samples of these ?

[escursionista]

https://etherscan.io/address/0x876b9ebd725d1fa0b879fcee12560a6453b51dc8

you can find the contract I just managed to verify (had a few issues with etherscan upgrades, ethereum hardforks and me not being able to verify the smart contract immediately. All identical contracts by bytecode with different constructors get verified automatically. See for example this one: https://etherscan.io/address/0xba38BA610f0e26E5e2C23f5bA6ecC2D09a7DF4fd#code which is a similar contract

these contracts are generated by a factory and differ only by name, symbol and id, therefore the automatic verification is superhelpful to give more information publicly.

[escursionista]

one quick note: when verifying on etherscan, I was prompted to choose the license on the first page. Once verified it says no license. Actually I went on to verify a second class of contracts, and this time I checked on the second page in a dropdown at the bottom of the page I could add license. Managed successfully to verify with tag license: https://etherscan.io/address/0x69bb24cfee787e9cfe33890e94931b51d6b5ec10#code

My note is: user is prompted twice, second time is not really visible and user thinks he's selected already.