Errors, bugs, questions - page 1121
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
That's the thing, it's not the first day the platforms have been running on VPS
Signal -https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/27216
I have had this problem, installed a terminal (MT4 build 625) and when I run it, a white terminal window appears on the screen (no charts and no tools) just for a split second and then closes... I can also see the terminal menu (File/View/Tools/Help). Processor Intel Celeron G530 Windows 8 64, but on Core2Duo Windows 8 32 terminal with build 625 works.
You have a deposit difference of 622 times. And the lot is opened with a minimum volume of 0.01. The grid provider opens many orders and your deposit is not enough to copy these positions. In this case, oversynchronization happens and trades are closed with a minus in order to try to open new ones. You are better off looking for a more suitable signal that matches your deposit.
The fact that the deposit is smaller is understandable. The volume is 0.01, not 0.5 or 0.3 (the minimum, so to speak). But why should we close positions to open new ones, it's not logical... If the deposit still allows you to maintain anopen position, why close something, it is unclear. My deposit a week ago sustained a drawdown of 3 times the author's deposit and nothing was closed... just did not open new ones and it is logical
Judging by the logs, there were not enough available funds and over-synchronisation started, as it is dangerous to leave open orders with a subscriber. You have a very large difference in deposits, so it is impossible to guarantee the copying of the signal. It makes sense not to open new positions but in this case the MM will be violated and positions of the Subscriber and Provider will not coincide.
Judging by the logs, there were not enough available funds and over-synchronisation started, as it is dangerous to leave open orders with a subscriber. You have a very large difference in deposits, so it is impossible to guarantee the copying of the signal. It makes sense not to open new positions, but then the MM would be broken and positions of subscriber and provider would not coincide.
Question for connoisseurs:
Can local variable methods of a derived classhide
private data members of a base class?
If they can't, I have a question for the developers:
Can this kind of warning be excluded from the compiler in the future?
In the process of poking around the ways of writing data to the file from the tester, here's an error (shortened, because it didn't fit):
That is, of course, I understand that this error is a natural result of my clumsiness. And in any case it was quickly fixed (the problem was in an attempt to pass non string data into FileWrite via third function, if necessary - I can describe it in more details). But the error looks not very clear and a little frightening :) and the compiler does not hint anywhere that it is expected. Maybe we should at least add some sort of warping or something.
I've got this kind of crash too. Happens when running a script if the Terminal (910) and the Compiler (921) don't match.
can this kind of warning be excluded from the compiler in the future?
If I were the compiler, I would issue a different warning here: int n = 0; - unused variable