Is the advisor ordered on a turnkey basis or in parts?
I immediately had a lot of questions about the idea (algorithm) of the Expert Advisor (although I asked several times before entering into the transaction, and the author replied that everything was clear). All questions were discussed and everything was explained.
There may be no questions at all. You may also have questions even after the work is done. So the questions - the absence, presence or excess of them - is not an indicator.
the problem was the developer's fault,
Definitely, yes. There could be any number of reasons. It could be that he didn't appreciate the client as a customer in time.
who thought it would be acceptable to do a bang-up job.
We don't know that. So don't be unsubstantiated.
The problem arose because I overloaded the terms of reference with details and combined the three processes in one (1.EA; 2.the indicator on the basis of which the EA makes decisions; 3.the trading panel).
It does not play a role. It is better to see the scope of work from the beginning. The developer can propose a stage by stage, or you may not.
You want to ensure that you do not get stuck with the developer for 3 months, without getting the results of this work.
There is no guarantee. You have to choose a developer. If there are problems with the work, then a sensible developer will at least explain what's wrong.
p.s. How does the developer explain the failure? What kind of difficulties he encountered with the TOR? Maybe inadequate complexity and cost of the work? Maybe in the customer?
Dear colleagues, good afternoon!
I ask for advice. Both the developers and those who ordered/ordered advisors.
Not so long ago I ordered an EA based on a custom indicator (also needed to be developed) and a trading panel to manually open trades (also needed to be developed) when needed.
The problem is the following. The author seemed to have a good reputation and started to do the job. I had a lot of questions about the idea (algorithm) of the Expert Advisor (even though I asked this question several times before opening the order and the author answered that everything was clear). All questions were discussed and everything was explained.
Then I developed a preliminary sample of the Expert Advisor, which met the requirements of the Terms of Reference by 30%. Then arbitration and a refund in my favour.
Without going into details, I would like to ask-
The problem arose through the fault of the developer, who thought that doing a half-assed job would be acceptable.
or
the problem arose because I overloaded the requirements specification with details and combined the 3 processes into one (1.Expert Advisor; 2.indicator, on the basis of which the Expert Advisor makes decisions; 3. trading panel).
Your advice is needed, so I would not get stuck with another order for 3 months without getting the result.
Thank you in advance!
P.S. If anyone interested in attaching the terms of reference.
Dear colleagues, Good afternoon!
A word of advice.
It is the customer's fault.
In this service the performer has no opportunity to choose an experienced performer. Any fool who has read the tutorial can fill his rating with simple orders. And since the customer does not do the whole testing cycle, he/she does not even realize that he/she got a "bum rap". Only 1 customer out of 20 guesses that he/she can try to pass the automatic validation with the code provided by the developer. And then suddenly it turns out that 8 out of 10 marketers are not able to write a product which passes this validation. But even this is not a guarantee of the EA proper operation in the future.
I took a quick look at the task. The only thing I will point out is that you should try to avoid logic circuits in the task. If they are in addition to the full description - you are welcome.
The program logic in MT is different from the typical programmer, so the programmer has to first decompose the customer logic in parts, and then write a correct one from scratch.
Only 1 in 20 customers guess that it is possible to try to pass automatic validation with the code given to them by the implementer. Suddenly it turns out that 8 out of 10 developers in the market are not capable of writing a product that passes this validation.
This is not the first time you talk about validation, and as a certain merit of the developer. What functionality must be needed for validation is described in the article with examples for two terminals: MT4 and MT5. And it doesn't take much intelligence to implement these described functions in the Expert Advisor. Another thing is that some practical experience in validation is needed. However, its absence does not negatively characterize the developer. It is just an experience, and it is not necessary.
Besides, what does validation give us? It checks if an Expert Advisor's functionality works correctly? No, it does not.
You are confusing the development of an Expert Advisor (as the design of a trading strategy) and the development of a ready-made product for sale.
Therefore, the validation, as a presale check of the Expert Advisor on the processing of boundary settings, is needed only at a certain stage - namely, when placing the Expert Advisor in the resource's market.
And shoving "validation" until it is clear whether the strategy has a future or not is a typical scam of the client for money + cheap swagger of the developer.
And it doesn't take much intelligence to implement these described functions in an EA.
However, 8 out of 10 are not smart enough to do it. And their implementation does not guarantee the passage of validation, there are a number of nuances that need to be known and constantly applied in advisors to exclude errors.
You confuse the development of an Expert Advisor (as the design of a trading strategy) and the development of a finished product for sale. Therefore, the validation, as a presale check of the Expert Advisor for testing of boundary settings, is needed only on a certain stage - namely, when placing the Expert Advisor in the resource's market.
Any EA that fails the simplest validation does not have enough checks to work in the market.
So any EA that hasn't passed the validation process should not be placed in an account under any circumstances.
The only exception is the errors like "No trade operations", but this is an exception.
And shoving "validation passing" until it is clear whether the strategy has a future or not -- this is a typical scam of the client for money + cheap swagger of the developer.
A normal developer writes the code correctly right away and does not have to "shove" anything into the code to pass the automatic validation. A normal developer simply cannot write incorrectly.
Validation is one of the basic mandatory steps of the testing cycle before sending an EA to the customer. It is just an extra check to see if anything is missing.
If you are baiting your customers, that's your problem.
Did I get it right that you are providing your customers with code that is ready for tester only?
And then, what gives validation? Checks the correctness of the Expert Advisor's functionality? No, it doesn't.
Of course it is, that's what it was designed for.
What is an Expert Advisor? A program which makes trades according to its algorithm.
If it can't perform trade operations correctly - no matter who wrote it.
This is what the validation shows.
At the last stage, it is not too difficult to combine all of these into one programme.
Any EA that is not able to pass the simplest validation does not have enough checks to work in the market.
So any EA that doesn't pass the validation process should never be placed in an account.
...
Of course it does, that's what it was designed for.
...
That's what the validation reveals.
you don't understand what validation is at all.
I am not in a dialogue with you further on the subject of validation and development -- I am not interested.
p.s. to study and understandhttps://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/2555-- what validation checks.
If you think that validation checks the correctness of an Expert Advisor's functionality - then you, as a developer, better shoot yourself.
- www.mql5.com
...
Without going into detail, I want to ask -
the problem was caused by a developer who thought it would be acceptable to do the job with a "bang".
or
the problem arose because I overloaded the requirements specification with details and merged the 3 processes into one (1.Expert Advisor; 2.indicator, on the basis of which the Expert Advisor makes decisions; 3. trading panel).
You advise me to avoid getting stuck for 3 months, without getting the result of this work.
...
And the lap-lap - is it? More would attach completed work ... see.
...
I downloaded the assignment, looked it up.
1. Too big task. The client has to pay to read such a task.
The customer is disconnected from reality. The task on the Expert Advisor, a conversation about the charts, which should draw the Expert Advisor. The fact that the customer does not understand the subject, from this will be a constant dissatisfaction and the impression that the work is not done as he thought.
Continue reading... Ostap goes further:
В настройках индикатора: 1) возможность указания баланса (с отображением в виде горизонтальной линии); 2) выбор пар до 8 шт.; 3) выбор типа ордера (buy/sell) для каждого ордера; 4) выбор размера ордера для каждого ордера; 5) наличие возможности применения MA, Zigzag, и т.п.; 6) указание периода, начиная с которого строится график (время, дата, год); 7) возможность указания точки, на которой откроются ордера реального счета с отображением в виде горизонтальной линии; 8) возможность указания точки, на которой сработает TP/ Reverse реального счета с отображением в виде горизонтальной пунктирной линии; 9) своп, спред не учитывается. 10)Расчет виртуального эквити производится на основании минимального шага цены. С момента активации на основе тиков. Исторические данные на основе M1.
---
As for the panel - each order should have a checkbox. What is the point?
---
I guess the doer didn't read the assignment.
---
I wonder what the price was?
---
Still, it's interesting to see the result.
===
All in all, problems on both sides - the customer is disconnected from reality, the doer - didn't read the assignment.
However, 8 out of 10 are not smart enough to do so. And their implementation does not guarantee validation, there are also a number of nuances that need to be known and constantly applied in EAs to exclude errors.
And yet any of these 8 can ask a question on the forum, ask for help from the room and they will do it for a thank you so that validation is successful. So what is the point of validation?
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Dear colleagues, good afternoon!
I would like to ask you for advice. I would like to ask both the developers and those who ordered/ordered Expert Advisors.
Not so long ago I ordered an EA based on a custom indicator (also needed to be developed) and a trading panel to manually open trades (also needed to be developed) when needed.
The problem is the following. The author seemed to have a good reputation and started to do the job. I had a lot of questions about the idea (algorithm) of the Expert Advisor (even though I asked this question several times before opening the order and the author answered that everything was clear). All questions were discussed and everything was explained.
Then I developed a preliminary sample of the Expert Advisor, which met the requirements of the Terms of Reference by 30%. Then arbitration and a refund in my favour.
Without going into details, I would like to ask-
The problem arose through the fault of the developer, who thought that doing a half-assed job would be acceptable.
or
the problem arose because I overloaded the requirements specification with details and combined the 3 processes into one (1.Expert Advisor; 2.indicator, on the basis of which the Expert Advisor makes decisions; 3. trading panel).
Your advice is needed, so I would not get stuck with another order for 3 months without getting the result.
Thanks in advance!