Checking the minimum stop in EAs published in the marketplace. - page 11
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
Well, on the MetaQuotes-Demo server (where the moderator is testing) the min. stop level returns normally. Check for yourself, 0 will not.
I don't know on what server the test moderator but the topic starter had a check for a stop level and the product was returned to him for improvement because of an error 130. Read the thread from the beginning.
In his case 130 may not only occur when owls try to place a stop loss too close to the market.
It is better to check directly when sending or modifying a slp.
Question, why put a stop loss of 1 point on the real?
I just remembered... Once tested such an algorithm with a minimum stop loss, the check is basically the same and there were no errors as well as no profits.
I've sold 60 Marketplace products -- I've written 80 freelance tasks -- I've had an advertising site for writing Expert Advisors, and I've been doing it for years.
And suddenly the topicstarter asks what to do about zero stoplevelling and says that the marketplace moderators are somehow weirdly checking the marketplace EAs.
In contrast to his comments -- the forum users who have experience of development, who have experience of putting products on the market -- read his comments and are perplexed.
Seems to me -- the topicstarter is in a state of complete inadequacy and has bluntly sucked the problem out of his hand.
The seller of 60 marketplace products -- who has written 80 tasks in local freelance -- who has a website advertising writing EAs -- and all of this is far from the first year -- is the topicstarter.
And suddenly the topicstarter asks what to do about zero stoplevelling and says that the marketplace moderators are somehow weirdly checking the marketplace EAs.
In contrast to his comments -- the forum users who have experience of development, who have experience of putting products on the market -- read his comments and are perplexed.
Seems to me -- the topicstarter is in a state of complete inadequacy and has bluntly sucked the problem out of his hand.
the code posted here:
You can't divide by a point that way, the value of theSymbolInfoDouble(symToWorkmodify,SYMBOL_POINT) function may be equal to zero.
This also applies to other market functions.
For example, the use ofAccountInfoInteger(ACCOUNT_LEVERAGE) in calculations at the 2010 championship caused some EAs to crash with aZero divide error, when this function returned 0 in OnInit.
Question, why put a stop loss of 1 point on the real?
I just remembered... I once tested a similar algorithm with a minimum stop-loss, the check was basically the same and there were no errors, nor were there any profits.
Look at the root of the matter. This is not about why I set a 1 pip stop loss. The point is that the stop loss may be less than the stop loss that is hidden by the broker and calculated based on the spread width.
To clarify the essence of the problem, I am showing you an Expert Advisor that uses your algorithm to check stops:
Testing result of such an Expert Advisor:
As can be seen, the method does not pass the elementary test.
Get to the root of it. It's not about why you should put a 1-point stoploss. It's about...
If you get to the root of it -- you have to distinguish between a) "foolproofing the developer's buyer " and b) counting on the buyer being an idiot. They are different protections.
No sane buyer would put a negative take and stop. Therefore, checking "how the EA will react to a negative stop and take" is counting on the fact that the buyer is an idiot.
Creating an EA in which a user-defined take and stop is forced to continuously increase by an incomprehensible value of "2 spreads" - this is "foolproofing" - only a protection against a "fool of a developer".
Especially if the developer puts such protection in order to pass market moderation.
If you look at the root of it, you have to distinguish between a) "foolproofing the developer purchaser " and b) counting on the purchaser being an idiot. These are different protections.
No sane buyer would put a negative take and stop. Therefore, checking "how the EA will react to a negative stop and take" is counting on the fact that the buyer is an idiot.
Creating an EA in which the user-defined take and stop is forced to continuously increase by an incomprehensible amount of "2 spreads" is "foolproof", only foolproof by not purchasing the product from the "fool developer".
Get to the root of it. It's not about why you should put a stop loss of 1 pip. It's about the fact that the stop loss may be less than the stop loss, which is hidden by the broker and is calculated based on the spread width.
To clarify the problem, I am showing you an Expert Advisor that uses your algorithm to check stops:
Testing result of such an Expert Advisor:
As can be seen, the method does not pass the elementary check.
If it is that bad, here is
log
and no problems.
Well, if it is that bad, as rightly pointed outby Andrey F. Zelinsky
If you want to degrade EA's functionality only to go to the Marketplace moderation, that is inadequate.
Do you think there are many sane people here? :) Especially among the buyers.
I think if you do the research -- there are more sane buyers than sane developers.
The buyer can be wrong. The customer can be made to understand. They can be persuaded.
But if the developer has a problem with the common sense, it can not be solved.
To impair the functionality of the Expert Advisor only to go to the Market -- this is inadequate.