added extra optional parameter "bid_amount_money" to "order.put_market_stock" RPC.

[djpnewton]

Default value is true and has no change to behavior. If the value is false then the "amount" parameter of a market bid is treated as "stock" instead of "money"

see also issue #32

replaces #35

[andrewshvv]

@djpnewton @haipome Any plans to merge it? 😄

[djpnewton]

its up to @haipome but I would be happy

[andrewshvv]

@djpnewton Hey, any updates on this guys?

[djpnewton]

I guess I just need some feedback from @haipome on whether he is ok with the direction of this PR

[HumanSwissArmyKnifeQP]

(More of a stylistic and lower priority comment than anything else.)

For a file of this size, could we not replace many of the if/else blocks with a ternary operator, to improve code readability?

[djpnewton]

sure but perhaps that kind of stylistic change should probably be in a dedicated PR

[compdzwio]

fuck, me_loader.c int ret = market_put_market_order(false, NULL, market, user_id, side, amount, taker_fee, source, /* bid_amount_money what to do? */);

me_loader.c Market records for loading databases， but the database does not have bid_amount_money, How to fill bid_amount_money when loading?

[djpnewton]

I have rebased this PR to master

[jkmaina]

when i check the deal.stock and deal.money on finished orders using the change with the optional parameter market orders, the returned values are zero. Is this expected behavior?

[haipome]

This function is useful. I will read and test careful before merge it into master

[mahdi13]

This code has a serious bug. Sometimes the deal's money exceeds the user's balance. Because of the calculation problem on these lines of code:

        } else {
            if (mpd_cmp(taker->left, maker->left, &mpd_ctx) < 0) {
                mpd_copy(amount, taker->left, &mpd_ctx);
            } else {
                mpd_copy(amount, maker->left, &mpd_ctx);
            }
        }

Then matching engine try to subtract this money value from the balance:

balance_sub(taker->user_id, BALANCE_TYPE_AVAILABLE, m->money, deal);

But the balance is not enough and the balance_sub method return NULL value. No one checks the returned value after this method call. So we'll have a duplicated balance value on the user balance history table. Actually, we'll have a subtract record (minus change value) on db, but the balance field of this record is the same as the previous record's balance field. The result is that the user put a bid market order and receive the requested stock amount without any change in it's money balance

[mahdi13]

The problem is on balance calculation. This line should be moved after the balance check:

mpd_del(money_required);

[djpnewton]

oh i see, money_required is being freed too soon

[djpnewton]

updated

[djpnewton]

rebased

[ceyonur]

any update on this? currently this functionality cannot be used as: "I want to buy x amount stock from the market". I believe this is a de facto standard among exchange services. They all provide "stock amount" in market orders.