Checking the minimum stop in EAs published in the marketplace. - page 14
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
Thank you all for your help. so far the problem has not been solved, but I will look for opportunities.
Problem solved. If the stopper is 0, then take the spread multiplied by the user-specified coefficient. If after first setting SL and TP we get error 130 without requotes, then increase coefficient by 1 and so on until error disappears. And tell the one who checks in the Marketplace to set the correct value of spread multiplier. Only in this case the Expert Advisor will work without receiving a single error 130.
Problem solved. If the stopper is 0, then take the spread multiplied by the user-specified coefficient. If after first setting SL and TP we get error 130 without requotes, then increase coefficient by 1 and so on until error disappears. And tell the one who checks in the Marketplace to set the correct value of spread multiplier. Only in this case the Expert Advisor will work without receiving a single error 130.
This is all good. But there is one thing. Which is the subject of our discussion:
error 130 should not appear at all, not once in any way.
Your solution is only for the user, but in the marketplace such a solution will not work. because there is error 130!
That's all well and good, but there is one thing. Which is the topic of discussion:
error 130 should not appear at all, not once in any way.
Your solution is only for the user, but it won't work in the marketplace. because there is an error 130!
There is a solution for that too (contained in a previous post):
And tell the person who checks in the marketplace to set the correct value for the spread multiplication factor.
There is a solution for this point too (contained in the previous post):
And tell whoever is checking in the marketplace to set the spread multiplier to the correct value.
No, they don't. The answer is one: "There should be no mistakes" and that's it...
When indicators are accepted for moderation, they do a funny thing: they physically delete the history from the folder of the terminal and run the indicator: if an error occurs outside the array - take a walk... But no ordinary users start the indicators that way , right? But, alas, moderators are probably competing with each other to see who can break the product more sophisticated. But one cannot keep an eye on all their tricks. As a result, the code is bloated many times over and everything is without any practical use - we just plug the holes invented by moderators.
Your solution is only for the user, but it won't work in the marketplace. because there is an error 130!
The user doesn't need it either.)
I'm telling you, make it work properly for real and plug it to check in the marketplace.
When they accept indicators for moderation, they do something funny: physically delete the history from the terminal folder and run the indicator: if there is an error when the array leaves the array - take a walk... But no ordinary users start the indicators that way , right? But, alas, moderators are probably competing with each other to see who can break the product more sophisticated. But one cannot keep an eye on all their tricks. In the end, the code is bloated many times over, and all without any practical use - we just fill the holes invented by moderators.
I disagree, the launching of the indicator on the chart without history is possible and happens quite often - when in a new terminal the user drags a symbol on the chart with a running indicator (or simply changes the TF to the one that has not opened yet).
There should not be such errors.
No, they don't. The answer is: "There shouldn't be any errors" and that's it...
When they accept indicators for moderation, they do it in a funny way: physically delete the history from the folder of the terminal and run the indicator: if there is an error when you leave the array - go away... But no ordinary users start the indicators that way , right? But, alas, moderators are probably competing with each other to see who can break the product more sophisticated. But one cannot keep an eye on all their tricks. As a result, the code is bloated many times over and everything is without any practical use - we just plug the holes invented by moderators.
Besides, when you find a tiny error which can be fixed in a couple of minutes, you have to wait several days more for the second moderation. :)
No, they don't. The answer is: "There shouldn't be any errors" and that's it...
When they accept indicators for moderation, they do it in a funny way: physically delete the history from the folder of the terminal and run the indicator: if there is an error when you leave the array - go away... But no ordinary users start the indicators that way , right? But, alas, moderators are probably competing with each other to see who can break the product more sophisticated. But one cannot keep an eye on all their tricks. As a result, the code is bloated many times over and everything is without any practical use - we just plug the holes invented by moderators.