Errors, bugs, questions - page 1121

New comment
 
ViktorK:

That's the thing, it's not the first day the platforms have been running on VPS

Signal -https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/27216

You have a 622-fold difference in deposits. And the lot is opened with a minimum volume of 0.01. The grid provider opens a lot of orders and your deposit is not enough to copy these positions. In this case, oversynchronization happens and trades are closed with a minus in order to try to open new ones. You are better off looking for a more suitable signal that matches your deposit.
 
GreyWolf1S:
Hi all..sorry if i posted in wrong thread.

I have had this problem, installed a terminal (MT4 build 625) and when I run it, a white terminal window appears on the screen (no charts and no tools) just for a split second and then closes... I can also see the terminal menu (File/View/Tools/Help). Processor Intel Celeron G530 Windows 8 64, but on Core2Duo Windows 8 32 terminal with build 625 works.

Can you attach the logs. And better yet, write a detailed request to the service desk with the logs.
 
Thank you... I'll do it now.
 
alexey_pak:
You have a deposit difference of 622 times. And the lot is opened with a minimum volume of 0.01. The grid provider opens many orders and your deposit is not enough to copy these positions. In this case, oversynchronization happens and trades are closed with a minus in order to try to open new ones. You are better off looking for a more suitable signal that matches your deposit.
That the deposit is smaller is understandable... The volume is therefore not 0.5 or 0.3 but 0.01 (the minimum so to speak)... But, why would you close positions to open new ones, it's not logical... If the deposit still allows you to maintain anopen position, why close something, it is unclear. My deposit a week ago sustained a drawdown of 3 times the author's deposit and nothing was closed... just did not open new ones and it is logical
 
ViktorK:
The fact that the deposit is smaller is understandable. The volume is 0.01, not 0.5 or 0.3 (the minimum, so to speak). But why should we close positions to open new ones, it's not logical... If the deposit still allows you to maintain anopen position, why close something, it is unclear. My deposit a week ago sustained a drawdown of 3 times the author's deposit and nothing was closed... just did not open new ones and it is logical

Judging by the logs, there were not enough available funds and over-synchronisation started, as it is dangerous to leave open orders with a subscriber. You have a very large difference in deposits, so it is impossible to guarantee the copying of the signal. It makes sense not to open new positions but in this case the MM will be violated and positions of the Subscriber and Provider will not coincide.

20:21:23.820 '5315105': Signal - copy position [#11519252 buy 0.30 USDCHF at 0.88020 sl: 0.85670]
20:21:24.445 '5315105': instant order buy 0.01 USDCHF at 0.87981 sl: 0.85670 tp: 0.00000
20:21:24.523 '5315105': order buy 0.01 USDCHF opening at 0.87981 sl: 0.85670 tp: 0.00000 failed [Not enough money]
20:21:05.461 '5315105': Signal - trade request failed [Not enough money]
20:21:05.461 '5315105': Signal - synchronization terminated, cannot copy position [#11519252 buy 0.30 USDCHF at 0.88020 sl: 0.85670]
20:21:05.461 '5315105': Signal - synchronization failed, processing of trade actions disabled
 
alexey_pak:

Judging by the logs, there were not enough available funds and over-synchronisation started, as it is dangerous to leave open orders with a subscriber. You have a very large difference in deposits, so it is impossible to guarantee the copying of the signal. It makes sense not to open new positions, but then the MM would be broken and positions of subscriber and provider would not coincide.

I see. Thank you for the information.
 

Question for connoisseurs:

Can local variable methods of a derived classhide

private data members of a base class?

If they can't, I have a question for the developers:

Can this kind of warning be excluded from the compiler in the future?

 
Lone_Irbis:

In the process of poking around the ways of writing data to the file from the tester, here's an error (shortened, because it didn't fit):

That is, of course, I understand that this error is a natural result of my clumsiness. And in any case it was quickly fixed (the problem was in an attempt to pass non string data into FileWrite via third function, if necessary - I can describe it in more details). But the error looks not very clear and a little frightening :) and the compiler does not hint anywhere that it is expected. Maybe we should at least add some sort of warping or something.

I've got this kind of crash too. Happens when running a script if the Terminal (910) and the Compiler (921) don't match.

 
Fleder:

can this kind of warning be excluded from the compiler in the future?

If I were the compiler, I would generate a different warning here: { int n = 0; } - unused variable
 
A100:
If I were the compiler, I would issue a different warning here: int n = 0; - unused variable
Unused would be: int n;
1...111411151116111711181119112011211122112311241125112611271128...3190
New comment