What's up with DEAL_ENTRY_* ? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
This article
https://www.mql5.com/en/articles/40
seems to indicate that DEAL_ENTRY isn't sufficient for determining what happened, you subsequently have to check DEAL_TYPE.
The article is a few years old but I hope it is still valid since I have been studying it in detail the last few days.
RikThis article
https://www.mql5.com/en/articles/40
seems to indicate that DEAL_ENTRY isn't sufficient for determining what happened, you subsequently have to check DEAL_TYPE.
The article is a few years old but I hope it is still valid since I have been studying it in detail the last few days.
RikNo, I don't think so.
This code does the same as mine (checks for DEAL_ENTRY), implying that all cases can occur. However, my problem is that only ever DEAL_ENTRY_IN is occurring, while all cases should occur according to buy/sell/reverse operations.
Subsequent checking for DEAL_TYPE will give additional information, however not relevant in my case (for it is only a simple test).
No, I don't think so.
This code does the same as mine (checks for DEAL_ENTRY), implying that all cases can occur. However, my problem is that only ever DEAL_ENTRY_IN is occurring, while all cases should occur according to buy/sell/reverse operations.
Subsequent checking for DEAL_TYPE will give additional information, however not relevant in my case (for it is only a simple test).
how bout this then... since you aren't calling HistorySelect(...), you aren't selecting from the latest history?
Yeah, problem solved:
One has to first copy [the deal] into [the deals] cache via i.e. HistoryDealSelect(deal_ticket) !?
Then one can query for i.e. HistoryDealGetInteger(...) ...
Not very intuitive though..