Errors, bugs, questions - page 667
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
SYMBOL_VOLUME_LIMIT property.
Maximum allowed total volume of an open position and pending orders (regardless of direction ) per symbol
//---
Is it really so or should it be phrased differently?
//---
If it should be understood the way it is written, then take a look at the screenshot below:
//---
The order which is marked with a red dot should not be set, because if we try to set an order with a volume that exceeds the limit, we will get an error(10034 - Limit on order and position volume for this symbol has been reached).
The limit on orders works correctly and if you try to set more than 12 orders (contest account) the order is not set and an error is returned(10033 - Limit on the number of pending orders has been reached).
To the previous message.
The same applies to position volume. It means that the volume is easily exceeded without returning an error(10034 - Limit of orders and positions for the given symbol has been reached). See screenshot below:
//---
And it is exceeded by as much as you want:
Well, I've already said something earlier about the free-thinking possibilities of technical support. It's like in Moscow at rallies: they agree on one slogan and talk about something else. ...If they have 51 currency pairs and that's it, then there shouldn't be any glasses. Otherwise, there will be real volumes instead of tick ones. I personally do not mind, but everything is suspicious. Next we see again the episode with Bezrukov :)
Got a reply from them today:
Message from tol64:
One more question to the previous post. The MT5 platform will be for stock trading only? So there will be no currency pairs if the EXCHANGE execution type remains?
For now, the plan is to offer only currency pairs, yes with exchange type execution and the stack from Currenex over the bridge.
To the previous message.
The same applies to position volume. It means that the volume is easily exceeded without returning an error(10034 - Limit of orders and positions for the given symbol has been reached). See the screenshot below:
//---
And it is exceeded by as much as you want:
The above mentioned was for pending orders.
As for increasing the position volume using BUY/SELL operations, everything is normal. When trying to exceed the limit, we get a corresponding code(10034 - Limit of order and position volume for a given symbol has been reached).
//---
I have had a lot of frustrations lately due to numerous bugs. Please fix it as soon as possible. I do not want to put a "dirty" product on the Market.
SYMBOL_VOLUME_LIMIT property.
Maximum allowed total volume of open positions and pending orders (regardless of direction ) per symbol
...
Besides, it is also wrong that we should not consider the volume regardless of the direction, but exactly direction dependent.
For example (with values of the contest limits):
There is an open BUY position(10 lots). If you set a BUY_STOP pending order(10 lots), we should get code 10034, since when it triggers, the volume will increase by a level higher than the limit set on the server(15 lots). If we proceed from the code written in red, we will get the same code even if we try to place SELL_STOP pending order. But why? Because we just close the position in this way. So, there is a direct dependence on the direction.
There is no ACCOUNT_LIMIT_ORDERS property in the Index list, in Help. When searching or clicking on property F1 ,ACCOUNT_LEVERAGE is highlighted .
tol64:
В списке Указателя, в Справке, нет свойства ACCOUNT_LIMIT_ORDERS. При поиске или нажатии на свойстве F1 выделяется ACCOUNT_LEVERAGE.
Thank you. We'll check and correct it.
Will you check and correct just that or everything I described in my last few posts? I am referring to the incorrect accounting of restrictions. Will you take note of this or will you duplicate it in Service Desk?
Certainly better to Service Desk. Your posts are pretty much scattered around the topic. Don't forget to specify the server and attach the test sources.
Certainly better to servicedesk. Your posts are quite scattered around the topic. Don't forget to specify the server and attach the test sources.