Errors, bugs, questions - page 1659

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
In the corrected build 1400 the error in a similar case is now reproduced as 'pure virtual function call'. And without a comment, it's fine.
build 1401. Error during execution: Invalid function pointer call in 'Script2.mq5'.
Found the reason with difficulty
And vice versa, if only (*fn) is specified in Script1 and both (*fnn) and (*fn) are specified in Script2. The error is not reproduced for all signatures.
But this (and previous ones with typedef) are incidental errors - I haven't found the main one yet, as there is no typedef with the same signature in the source program (as in this example).
Perhaps the returned application #1550570, augmented with a check script and 'String5.ex5' file, will help.
And it seems that the problem occurs when getting only the first tick on a new bar, the tester seems to "get stuck" and lags 1 bar behind, that is, the expert thinks that the bar does not exist and it really does not in the visualization, but after a couple of seconds the bar appears, in the case of tests on M1 the correct value comes on the second tick (if I understand correctly), I hope the developers will fix this annoying moment as soon as possible ...
addition:
it turns out that to circumvent this moment now you have to artificially skip the first tick of a new bar...
It's not working for me. Writes one single line in the log (see above) and that's it.
Windows XP SP3 x32, 1395. Certificate message appears when logging in. But it shouldn't affect the tester.
When testing in the " Open prices only" mode it is simply unrealistic. We really have to wait for a fix...
I agree, then the whole bar will be missed, I can assume that in EA you have to pause (hehe) to allow the bar to form,
but it is not clear exactly how long to wait, and also according to my observations it seems to depend on the current CPU load (wow!),
The only way out is tickwise testing with independent check of a new bar and skipping of the first tick (of course it is a very complex process).