Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[.5] Buy/Sell makes odd assumptions #497

Closed
wmbutler opened this issue Oct 5, 2017 · 1 comment
Closed

[.5] Buy/Sell makes odd assumptions #497

wmbutler opened this issue Oct 5, 2017 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
[3] Bug Classification indicating the existing implementation does not match the intention of the design
Milestone

Comments

@wmbutler
Copy link
Contributor

wmbutler commented Oct 5, 2017

Carefully watch this screencast. It appears that we are making some odd calculation assumptions based upon previously entered qty values.I don't think it's very wise to make these assumptions. An order should start fresh each time. In the case below, you will see that a qty of 3 open.LTC had been previously entered. After clearing all 3 values, the frontend operates under the assumption of 3 units until it is manually cleared again.

I think the solution is to start with a clean slate and only calculate the third number when at least two others have been *manually populated.

buy

@wmbutler wmbutler added the [3] Bug Classification indicating the existing implementation does not match the intention of the design label Oct 5, 2017
@wmbutler wmbutler added this to the 171015 milestone Oct 5, 2017
@svk31
Copy link
Contributor

svk31 commented Oct 11, 2017

This was an issue with the Asset class not accepting 0 as an input, it was fixed here: c7b6e43

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[3] Bug Classification indicating the existing implementation does not match the intention of the design
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants