Metatrader known bugs ... - page 70
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
Posting the whole picture from metaeditor and what does the metaeditor tell me when I try to compile the file in the current opened window :
I would rather not comment anything ... except that in some cases we simple can not know what will the new metatrader do. Only wild guess what is going on with the upper example, but I leave the guesses to mq. If metaeditor is not able to compile the file in the current window, then some things are becoming crystal clearWhich build?
Which build?
That is build 711 but previous build did that sometimes too. Not testing never builds
you just have to press only once spacebar in the blanks.
It becomes a nmc: Forex TSD - forex forum - Download Grid-EA-2.mq4
That is build 711 but previous build did that sometimes too. Not testing never builds
Figures. Builds over 700 are moronic
I have caught interesting bug. My logs show that OnCalculate() gets nesting invocation after applying command
I use the command in the indicator during OnCalculate().
The command forces event of changing timeframes. Indicator then deinits, and inits. So far so good.
But.... the trace log shows that OnCalculate did not finish before OnDeninit(), but it continues after the next OnCalculate() event, which appeared after initialization. It is what my trace log recorded.
[CODE]2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnCalculate() >>(IN) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:173
2014.10.27 16:46:32 INFO: OnCalculate() >>(Complete reset request ) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:202
// missing trace for OUT OnCalculate()
2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnDeinit() >>(IN) @MT4BaseManager.class.mqh:424
2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnDeinit() >>(OUT) @MT4BaseManager.class.mqh:430
// now - the indicator restarts
2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnInit() >>(IN) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:114
2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnInit() >>(OUT 0) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:127
2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnCalculate() >>(IN) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:173
2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnCalculate() >>(OUT) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:206
2014.10.27 16:46:32 TRACE: OnCalculate() >>(OUT) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:206 // this trace belongs to the first log part
2014.10.27 16:46:33 TRACE: OnCalculate() >>(IN) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:173
2014.10.27 16:46:33 TRACE: OnCalculate() >>(OUT) @MT4IndicatorManager.class.mqh:206
From my point of view I revealed just additional source of "mysterious" unexplainable errors in my code.
It will never end. New build just reporting newer an newer bugs. As if metatrader does not know what does beta testing mean (or they think that it means "they are all so happy now")
I have caught interesting bug. My logs show that OnCalculate() gets nesting invocation after applying command
I use the command in the indicator during OnCalculate().
The command forces event of changing timeframes. Indicator then deinits, and inits. So far so good.
But.... the trace log shows that OnCalculate did not finish before OnDeninit(), but it continues after the next OnCalculate() event, which appeared after initialization. It is what my trace log recorded.
...
From my point of view I revealed just additional source of "mysterious" unexplainable errors in my code.Oh boy, finally I reported the bug to MQL5 Service desk, and they already closed the issue with resolution:
No comment. Or better one comment: If something does not work, there is no reason to use it.
Oh boy, finally I reported the bug to MQL5 Service desk, and they already closed the issue with resolution:
No comment. Or better one comment: If something does not work, there is no reason to use it.A comment : "there is no need to use metatrader"
Moronic attitude from metatrader will never stop
A comment : "there is no need to use metatrader"
Yes, the attitude is problem. If they apologized that they did not intend to use it this way and they update the documentation - I would accept it.
Moreover, the only reason I use this command for is fixing their other bug.
Yes, the attitude is problem. If they apologized that they did not intend to use it this way and they update the documentation - I would accept it. Moreover, the only reason I use this command for is fixing their other bug.
Metatrader always had that attitude : if you tell them that something is wrong, they always take it personally and they always think that the ultimate goal is to attack them. That is leaving them with game testers in 99% of cases and not beta testers, and when they get a report of a serious bug, then the answer is always the same (like the answer I got) : "If it (the buggy function) does not work why do you want to use it?"
Nothing has changed and nothing will