...
Any feedback will be extremely appreciated.
This can work with a "standard" Expert Advisor, see this topic How to test a strategy for all timeframe.
But here you are using an EA generated with the Wizard, there are some limitations, in your case, the method Init of CExpert class impose a check on TimeFrame :
//--- returns false if the EA is initialized on a symbol/timeframe different from the current one if(symbol!=Symbol() || period!=Period()) { printf(__FUNCTION__+": wrong symbol or timeframe (must be %s:%s)",symbol,EnumToString(period)); return(false); }
So if you need an EA created with the Wizard to be run on any TimeFrame, you have to create your own class derived from CExpert and implementing your own initialization. However it's not a trivial task and I am not sure about the consequence to bypass this TimeFrame checking.
As a reference about backtesting and Strategy Tester, see the following topic ...

- www.mql5.com
I forgot to mention that you can set your input parameter to PERIOD_CURRENT, then you can run your tests on different timeframe simply by changing the Strategy Tester period's combo box.
Thank you all for responding.
Problem solved after by passing this check
if(symbol!=Symbol() || period!=Period())
in CExpert as suggested by angevoyageur.
Thanks again to all for the help
Thank you all for responding.
Problem solved after by passing this check
if(symbol!=Symbol() || period!=Period())
in CExpert as suggested by angevoyageur.
Thanks again to all for the help

- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Hello everyone,
I wonder if there is a way to bypass the conflict between the time frame chosen in the tester settings
and the time frame the expert is initialized with in the input params.
Every time this conflict happens I get this annoying massage:
My aim is to run the tester on every time frame available much like the possibility to do so on all the symbols on the MarketWatch.
Doing it one by one, although possible, is kind of lame.
Here is a part of the code involved:
Any feedback will be extremely appreciated.