(Bug) Freezelevel consideration for deleting BuyLimit orders - page 4

New comment
 
Rob Josephus Maria Janssen #:
Thanks Alan. In the meantime is there anything I can do to circumvent the issue and get my EA uploaded? Or when do you think this issue will be resolved?

I can't help about the validation, I transmitted the bug report.

Also I checked on a live account (demo) and there is no such problem.

[Deleted]  
@Alain Verleyen #: That's not the problem. A discussion about the relevance of using pending orders or not, is off-topic.
Yes, I have already apologised for misunderstanding the issue ... https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/497996/page3#comment_58322963
 
Rob Josephus Maria Janssen #:
Then the algorithm will fail miserably and I will expect the validation to return on ‘not enough money’ or other money and margin related issues (I tried this) Does anyone know how fast reported bugs are fixed and updates are pushed?

Yes, the test can bring losses, but it is so for most of the tests - the validation checks "correctness" of EA (how MQ see it), and not profitability.

And yes - you need to check all related potentially dangerous conditions (such as low margin level, total number of allowed lots or number of orders) anyway.

 
Rob Josephus Maria Janssen #:
Any clue on when we can expect an update that resolves this issue Alan?
No one here can answer you, except for the case if a developer from MQ will respond.
 
Stanislav Korotky #:
No one here can answer you, except for the case if a developer from MQ will respond.
And my firstname is Alain, not Alan.
 
Alain Verleyen #:
And my firstname is Alain, not Alan.
I left the exact wording in Rob Josephus Maria Janssen's post in the quote "as is". ;-)
 
Stanislav Korotky #:
I left the exact wording in Rob Josephus Maria Janssen's post in the quote "as is". ;-)
Of course, it was just easier to post it as an answer to your message.
 
Stanislav Korotky #:
Until a fix in the automatic validator is done, your only workaround is to check in the code if EA is running under a tester and do not remove limit orders if freeze level is nonzero (instead you can assign an expiration time, for example).
Ah yes, the "Volkswagen" way... If (test) pass

Shouldn't that be checked upon submission, that EA's do not use such constructs?
 
Remco Janssen #:
Ah yes, the "Volkswagen" way... If (test) pass

Shouldn't that be checked upon submission, that EA's do not use such constructs?

Such internal implementation is legal (the same as non-visible virtual stoploss/takeprofit, for example) and can be a part of a trading system. I don't think any check could distinguish an induced workaround (non-required in a case when validation works correctly) from specific algorithm really needed to a trading system (for example, short expiration time for pending orders).

If you mean that EA should not check itself against the condition of running in the tester, then it's not possible for some other conditions (such as a permission to trade, which should be checked online but must be skipped in the tester in order to trade there at all).

 
Stanislav Korotky #:
Such internal implementation is legal (the same as non-visible virtual stoploss/takeprofit, for example) and can be a part of a trading system. I don't think any check could distinguish an induced workaround (non-required in a case when validation works correctly) from specific algorithm really needed to a trading system (for example, short expiration time for pending orders).
My orders are deleted based on triggers, and need to be deleted immediately. Using expiration time therefore would not fit the bill. I do appreciate the proposal
123456
New comment