MetaTrader 4 Platform Update Build 670: Virtual Hosting, Web Requests and Working with Signals from MQL Applications - page 4

New comment
 

:) maybe you should check once more :) it does. b670.

when new .mq4 is added, refresh compiles and generates .ex4. it is possible that you are not seeing it, because compile failed in your case.

However, when you delete the .ex4, refresh will not compile it again. this part tricked me :(

In the navigator list, you can see two types of icons, which are shown for different cases depending whether both mq4 and ex4 are present or not. So the list shows also EAs which are not compiled. In old MT4 difference was more visible, in new MT4 icons are similar.

 

Anyway, the list in Strategy tester is not refreshed, unless source is compiled from editor. It is also not refreshed if you delete files. And this should be changed.

 
graziani:

:) maybe you should check once more :) it does. b670.

when new .mq4 is added, refresh compiles and generates .ex4. it is possible that you are not seeing it, because compile failed in your case.

However, when you delete the .ex4, refresh will not compile it again. this part tricked me :(

In the navigator list, you can see two types of icons, which are shown for different cases depending whether both mq4 and ex4 are present or not. So the list shows also EAs which are not compiled. In old MT4 difference was more visible, in new MT4 icons are similar.

 

Anyway, the list in Strategy tester is not refreshed, unless source is compiled from editor. It is also not refreshed if you delete files. And this should be changed.

 

  You are right, it compiles with "Refresh". It was my test EA who doesn't compile as it needs an .mqh file.

Anyway, as you said, it has to be fixed.

 

There seems to be a bit of a SNAFU with corner-oriented chart objects (OBJ_LABEL & friends)... here are a few screenshots of different objects - same code, same coordinates, all attached to upper right corner, the only difference is object type:


Rectangle_label:

OBJ_RECTANGLE_LABEL


Label1:

OBJ_LABEL


Label2:

OBJ_LABEL

Button:

OBJ_BUTTON


Code:

void DockButton::Create(int win, ENUM_BASE_CORNER c) {
        if(!obj_show) return;
        if(ObjectCreate(obj_button,objtype,win,0,0)) {
                ObjectSet(obj_button,OBJPROP_CORNER,c);                   // Label2
                //ObjectSetInteger(0,obj_button,OBJPROP_CORNER,c);        // Label1
        };
}


Using ObjectSet() vs. ObjectSetInteger() to set OBJPROP_CORNER seems to make a difference with OBJ_LABEL objects (but not others) - Label1 was set using ObjectSetInteger() while Label2 was set using ObjectSet() to set the corner.


MT4, b670

edit: trimmed code for brewity, object coordinates are set elsewhere (always same coordinates though).

edit 2: explicitly setting OBJPROP_ANCHOR to the same corner doesn't seem to make any difference.

edit 3: Label2 is the only one that seems correct, the others look like they're off (some by approximately the object width). edit 4: Looks like the others still have the anchor set to ANCHOR_LEFT_UPPER - see edit 2.

 

I had an illusion that with new MT4 you can use one instance for all brokers, however this is only partially true:

To download history you need to have the brokers MT4.

And BTW i tried 3 upgrades from 509 to new MT4, and NONE of them finished successfully. 3 times i got garbage (last time today).

Best way is to make a clean install, and then copy the sources you need, and install the history you need.

 

Great job, MQ. 

 
smacznykonsek:

I think this is not quite correct.


I have reported an error where all toolbars shift all the way to the left when build 646 was released (https://forum.mql4.com/62849/page4) and this issue still persist in build 670. This problem is quite annoying and is very obvious and easy to test. It used to work all fine prior to build 646.


Correction: Service Desk told me that in build 670 we can un-check "Auto Arrange" which solves the problem. http://screencast.com/t/ugvijlT6h7M (Screenshot by Service Desk)
 

WHY will FIX this?

https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/145538/page4

I had reported to my broker the MT4 fail since build 500, then contacted to metaquotes, promised fix this issue in the next build. (1 years ago)

Since build 500 can't allow windows DPI settings, too small characters on high resolution monitors. 482build the last flawless version.

Why do not want fix?

 

Labels etc (objects with pixel-based coordinates (not time/price coordinates)) draw off by one pixel; this object (OBJ_BITMAP_LABEL) is drawn at coordinates (0,0):


1 is the chart border line as drawn by MT4 - putting the pointer on this line will show x=0, 2 is object border line (drawn at 0,0!) - putting the pointer on this line will show x=1 even though it's drawn at (0,0).

This is visible if pointer coordinates are tracked and compared with object coordinates (for mouseover etc). So pointer coordinates for an object drawn at (0,0) are (1,1).

Build 670.

 

CCanvas doesn't call ResourceFree() anywhere, and it probably should (at least in Destroy()), so if you call Create() multiple times old resources don't get freed. Also, not sure why there's a random number added to resource name every time in Create() - perhaps I want to reuse the same resource name if the object is re-created.

MT4 build 670.

 
Also, it'd be nice if there was a method to report the width and height of the resource or the picture or whatever so it can be fit properly without hardcoding these values in the code.
 

Hi,

I have some questions to the Depth of Market.

At first I expected that the column Trade shows the cumulated volume of trades of the price of this line - but I gues that this is not the case. What I can see is only my trades - correct?

At second I am surprised that the prices seems not to be the actual open (pending) orders of the market but as of Bid and Ask the next price is only one tick away.

I just looked at an exotic pair chf/zar and I see for Bid(Sell): 11.69050, 11,69049, .. while the minimal change seems to be 0.00050 so the ..49, ..48,.. seems to me pretty ridiculous.

In total am I correct that the 'Depth of Market' has nothing to do with the market except the Ask and Bid price?

For whom this should be helpful - this way??

123456
New comment
Reason: