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

Inconsistent name of keyword argument of fetchOrderBook() between exchanges in Python version #365

Closed
dhmk815 opened this issue Oct 21, 2017 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@dhmk815
Copy link

dhmk815 commented Oct 21, 2017

Hello, I found something inconsistent in the name of keyword argument of fetchOrderBook().

import inspect

argspec = inspect.getfullargspec(ccxt.bithumb().fetchOrderBook)
print(argspec.args)
### ['self', 'symbol', 'params']

argspec = inspect.getfullargspec(ccxt.bittrex().fetchOrderBook)
print(argspec.args)
### ['self', 'market', 'params']

argspec = inspect.getfullargspec(ccxt.poloniex().fetchOrderBook)
print(argspec.args)
### ['self', 'market', 'params']

As shown in above code, in bithumb exchange, the keyword for fetchOrderBook() is symbol.
But, in other exchanges, it's market.
Of course, it's not a big deal if I don't put keyword when calling the function.

@dhmk815 dhmk815 changed the title Inconsistent name of keyword argument of fetchOrderBook() between exchanges Inconsistent name of keyword argument of fetchOrderBook() between exchanges in Python ccxt Oct 21, 2017
@dhmk815 dhmk815 changed the title Inconsistent name of keyword argument of fetchOrderBook() between exchanges in Python ccxt Inconsistent name of keyword argument of fetchOrderBook() between exchanges in Python version Oct 21, 2017
@kroitor kroitor self-assigned this Oct 21, 2017
@kroitor
Copy link
Member

kroitor commented Oct 21, 2017

Hi, @dhmk815 ! Thanks for pointing that out, we will bring it into order, will upload the edits asap!

@dhmk815
Copy link
Author

dhmk815 commented Oct 21, 2017

Hi, @kroitor ! Thank you for your reply.

@kroitor
Copy link
Member

kroitor commented Oct 21, 2017

This issue is fixed as of version 1.9.223+. Thx again for your feedback!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants