MetaQuotes-Demo: clarification of Python tick/bar timestamp semantics, build 6231

New comment
 
Hello,

We are validating timestamps for a read-only internal Paper Trading application before resuming FX simulation. No broker orders are being sent.

Environment:
- Windows 10 x64
- MetaQuotes-Demo, demo account
- Terminal version: 500, build 6231, 27 Sep 2026
- Official MetaTrader5 Python package: 5.0.6180
- Python 3.13.15

On 2026-09-30, we read symbol_info_tick for USDJPY, EURJPY and GBPJPY six times each. Quotes and timestamps changed across the samples. Raw time and time_msc were internally consistent, but their numeric values interpreted as Unix UTC were about 10,798.325 to 10,799.745 seconds ahead of PC receipt UTC.

Example USDJPY observation:
PC request UTC: 2026-09-30 10:55:02.926539
PC receipt UTC: 2026-09-30 10:55:02.926580
time: 1790776501
time_msc: 1790776501252
bid: 157.042
ask: 157.043
Raw numeric time_msc interpreted as UTC: 2026-09-30 13:55:01.252000

copy_rates_from_pos(symbol, TIMEFRAME_M1 or TIMEFRAME_M5, 0, 3) returned a latest bar-open label of 1790776500 for all three symbols. Neither this call nor symbol_info_tick used a datetime argument.

Windows NTP stripchart measurements against time.windows.com before and after collection were within 0.003 seconds. These were ordinary unauthenticated NTP checks, not certified UTC evidence.

The Python documentation states that tick/bar times and data received from the terminal are UTC:
The general MQL5 documentation separately describes server-local time.

Could you please confirm:
1. The epoch and time domain of Python tick time, time_msc and bar time on this server/build.
2. The actual UTC timestamp corresponding to the example above.
3. If server-wall-clock encoding applies, its documented offset, DST transition rules and applicable date ranges, including rules for historical records.
4. Whether any known build/package issue or supported fix explains this discrepancy.

No timestamp correction has been applied, and FX simulation remains stopped pending verification. Thank you.
New comment