Problem with EA validation on the Market - page 10
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
The test ended with errors
Try working on a low leverage account. Perhaps there just isn't enough margin.
I'll bet! :)
For example, you can effectively use Sleep to save computing resources - the load on the CPU.
Or one more example: you can implement waiting for required timeseries to be downloaded.
Or another example: you can also implement animation of graphics.
In the script, it is impossible to implement timer without it.
You can think of a lot of other things that can be done using Sleep ;)
Had quite a lot of communication with servisdesk today. Started to respond quickly. Answered a few of my questions almost in real time today. I even managed to take a 2Gig screenshot of that cryptic log (attached in the picture with the answer). There were 131 "Incorrect volume" errors all over the place. My attempts to model the situation with at least one such error did not have any success (I got a clean log without errors in all imaginable and unimaginable test modes). All my attempts to get more information about specific test conditions from service desk failed. They stubbornly limit themselves to generalities. In each answer they stick their faces into articles and documentation. In principle they point them in the right places but the sad thing is that it doesn't allow us to repeat the situation they created during testing. You still have to edit the code blindly. It feels like we're being taught to read like first graders in the olden days. With a whip. There's no sense of interest in helping, only hitting if you read it wrong.
Well, thanks for showing me the error code at least. Now I understand where to look in the programme. I think they're sick of people like us. Their autovalidator has not made their work less, but more. That is why it has become more difficult for them to answer specific questions.
Maybe create a separate thread on the forum for EA developers to articulate what they want to see in the autovalidator testing protocol. This would help the autovalidator developers bring their child to a level where it helps people, rather than hinders them.
Share your experience, plz, how have you solved this problem? I have a similar one, and similar to servicedesk.
If the volume is not correct, there are only 3 checks to be made.
1. the volume should be in the format 0.01 or 0.1 depending on the broker. in the EA it can calculate the minimum step for changing the lot.
2. Calculated Lot should not be less than the minimum. i.e. it cannot be n = 0.01, = 0.00 or = 0.00092. Only 0.01 or no transaction order.
3. Control of maximum lot. The lot cannot be higher than 100. 102 or 100.8 must not appear with any deposit.
It's all there, but it didn't help
It's all there, but it didn't help
Apparently it's not implemented correctly. Is there a code?
Share your experiences, please, how did you solve this problem? I have a similar one and similar servicedesk bounces
The error 131 "Incorrect volume" is easy to overcome. There is a section wrong volumes in trading operations in their favorite article of the moderators. Here is a sample code for lot correction. We pass our calculated lot values through this code right before placing an order. This code gives the correct lot value.
Please note that this check should be performed even if the lot is not calculated but just taken from the input parameters. The moderator may intentionally use the incorrect number to make your life more pleasant.
Error 131 "Incorrect volume" was easily overcome. There is a section on Wrong Volumes in Trades in the moderators' favourite article. There is a sample code for lot correction there. We pass our calculated lot values through this code right before placing an order. This code gives the correct lot value.
Please note that this check should be performed even if the lot is not calculated but just taken from the input parameters. The moderator may intentionally use the incorrect number to make your life more pleasant.
It's not the moderator who is messing with you here, but rather checking your code for "foolproofness". And if your code does not have such checks against wrong user's actions, what is the market for such an Expert Advisor?
It's not the moderator who's putting you on the spot here, it's your code that's checking for "foolproofing". And if your code does not have such checks against wrong actions of the user, what is the market for such an Expert Advisor?
We do not mind. Let him check it. Just let him tell us what he has done to cause an error. But in the current situation, you have shown us the error code and that's it: we cannot re-simulate it, since the experiment's conditions are not fixed. This makes it very difficult to find errors.