Validation error when releasing the trading robot to the market. - page 4
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
Hello!
Today the validator started giving a message:
Checked with three examiners, 10 seconds and it fails. What can be the problem, Maybe you have something with the software!
P.S. I put for checks in OnTick() the first line of the print:
Can't be a blank tester report!!! My logs are full:
Today, the validator started giving out a message:
It was, it passed. Validator error.
Hello!
The validator started giving out a message today:
Thank you for your message. Corrected.
Yes, the Validator is up and running. But now there's another strange thing. The validator used to give this result
At the same time on my tester goes all right. I put a crutch to check the code (division by zero):
And got:
It turns out that, during the test, the validator still leaves on the function of order opening. It is absolutely unclear why it gives out:no trading operations
Yes, the Validator is up and running. But now there's another strange thing. The validator used to give this result
At the same time on my tester goes all right. I put a crutch to check the code (division by zero):
And got:
It turns out that, during the test, the validator still leaves on the function of order opening. I do not understand why the analyzer generatesno trading operations.
Most probably, an error occurs when sending an order and the log contains something like GetLastError. It would be great if a function of the Throw(code) type was added to MQL that would lead to a stop like division by zero but return the code and then we could write Throw(GetLastError()) to get a hint in the log. There is, by the way, TerminalClose(retcode) function - you can try to use it, but I suspect that it is simply disabled in autotester.
I totally agree.
Ideally, of course, the validator would send out test logs rather than just a three line report. Then there would be a chance to figure out what's wrong instead of pointing fingers in the sky.
Please think about it.
I totally agree.
Ideally, of course, the validator would send out test logs rather than just a three line report. Then there would be a chance to figure out what's wrong instead of pointing fingers in the sky.
Please think about it.
Rather, there will be ways of getting around (hiding) a particular error rather than correctly drafting the logic of the trading functions. There should be no validation errors if "idiotic" input parameters are properly accounted for and handled, or if trading conditions are calculated incorrectly for the trade.
There's no error here, I don't understand what's going on at all. I put a crutch (division by zero) before the trade function:
It works:
I take it out, it gives me the same
No trading operations.
I don't understand what prevents the validator from OrderSend(). After all, if it reaches him, there must be billing errors (although I've fixed them all) 130, 131, 134, ..., but not"no trading operations". All I have to do now is to insert in OnInit() a pending order somewhere far away from it, I don't know how to fight with it.
There's no mistake, I don't understand what's going on here. I put a crutch (division by zero) before the trade function:
It works:
I take it out, it gives me the same
No trading operations.
I don't understand what prevents the validator from OrderSend(). After all, if it reaches him, there must be billing errors (although I've fixed them all) 130, 131, 134, ..., but not"no trading operations". All I have to do now is to insert in OnInit() a pending order somewhere far away from it, I don't know how to fight with it.