I've been using MQL4 for a couple of days now, but recently I've been getting the error message:
(133) trade is disabled
when performing an order.
From reading the different forums, I understand the common belief is that I have to talk to my broker to enable Expert Advisors, but trading DID work for me (on and off) until now!
Has anyone else encountered this error - NOT relating to enable EA from the server?
No need to talk to your Broker
MetaTrader4 Server side has nothing to do with this.
Check your localhost Terminal settings
There might be several reasons, why the EA was working ( "DID work" as you post it )
and still you get an error.
An MT4.Terminal.Profile change can also cause this to happen.
An MT4.Terminal.LogAnotherUser change can also cause this to happen.
An MT4.Terminal.Graph change of { Symbol | Period } can also cause this to happen.
Check Tools > Options > Expert Advisor [TAB] for active values in respective check-boxes for all the above.
Check, if you are correctly logged-on to a correct ( not canceled ) trading account.
Check, if your connection is green / working
Check, if your trading Symbol has active market ( open trading hours )
If still in troubles, send a few OrderSend()-s with PrintScreen-s and copy responses from Log-File & post here.
Maybe it cause of abnormal looping by your Expert Advisor. You may see at journal tab, if it created too many orders or modify orders at a moment of time, server could significantly overloaded and caused lags and malfunctions. Therefore, broker should disable it.
If so, you should fix your EA first, then let your broker know that as consideration for asking them to reenable your account.
Just had this problem using a Broker-configured account, with hedging enabled.
I had been running on DEMO-practice, with no problems, but when I switched to the LIVE-account, error 133 happened.
It was because the trade server that it was linked in was the GMT-5 one, and only the GMT+2 server is allowed for a hedging account.
Server was changed, started working no problem.
Check with your broker that the symbol hasn't been disabled. They do this sometimes when they introduce a new symbols to replace old ones.
A disabled symbol will still show up in MT4 to allow users to close trades in the symbol ( but you get the above mentioned error, if you try to open a new order )
I encountered that same error code when I tried to modify the Stoploss of an already closed order.
Related
I build an app that is able to store OData offline by using SAP Kapsel Plugins.
More or less it's the same as generated by WEB ID or similer to the apps in this example: https://blogs.sap.com/2017/01/24/getting-started-with-kapsel-part-10-offline-odatasp13/
Now I am at the point to check the error resolution potential. I created a sync conflict (chaning data on the server after the offline database was stored and changed something on the app and started a flush).
As mentioned in the documentation I can see the error in ErrorArchive and could also see some details. But what I am missing is the information of the "current" data on the database.
In the error details I can just see the data on the device but not the data changed on the server.
For example:
Device is loading some names into offline store
Device is offline
User A is changing some names
User B is changing one of this names directly online
User A is online again and starts a sync
User A is now informend about the entity that was changed BUT:
not the content user B entered
I just see the "offline" data.
Is there a solution to see the "current" and the "offline" one in a kind of compare view?
Please also note that the server communication is done by the Kapsel Plugin and not with normal AJAX calls. This could be an alternative but I am wondering if there is no smarter way supported by the API?
Meanwhile I figured out how to load the online data (manually).
This could be done by switching http handler back to normal one.
sap.OData.removeHttpClient();
sap.OData.applyHttpClient();
Anyhow this does not look like a proper solution and I also have the issue with the conflict log itself. It must be deleted before any refresh could be applied.
I could not find any proper documentation for that. Also ETag handling is hardly described in SAPUI5 and SAP Kapsel documentation.
This question is a really tricky one, due to its implications. I understand that you are simulating a synchronization error due to concurrent modification, and want to know if there is a way for the client to obtain the "current" server state in order to give the user a means to compare the local and server state.
First, let me give you the short answer: No, there is no way for the client to see the current server state "for reference" via the Offline APIs when there are synchronization errors. Doing an online query as outlined above might work, but it certainly is a bad idea.
Now for the longer answer, which explains why this is not necessarily a defect and why I said there are quite some implications to the answer.
Types of Synchronization Errors
We distinguish a number of synchronization errors, and in this context, we are clearly dealing with business-related issues. There are two subtypes here: Those that the user can correct, e.g. validation errors, and those that are issues in the business process itself.
If the user violates the input range, e.g. by putting a negative price for a product, the server would reply with the corresponding message: "-1 is not a valid input value for 'Price'". You, as a developer, can display such messages to the user from the error archive, and the ensuing fix is indeed a very easy one.
Now when we talk about concurrent modification, things get really, really nasty. In fact, I like to say that in this case there is an issue with the business process, because on one hand, we allow data to get out of sync. On the other hand, the process allows multiple users to manipulate the same piece of information. How all relevant users should now be notified and synchronize, is no longer just a technical detail, but in fact a new business process. There just is no way to generically device how to handle this case. In most cases, it would involve back-office experts who need to decide how the changes should be merged.
A Better Solution
Angstrom pointed out that there is no way to manipulate ETags on the client side, and you should in fact not even think about it. ETags work like version numbers in optimistic locking scenarios, and changing the ETag basically means "Just overwrite what's on the server". This is a no-go in serious scenarios.
An acceptable workaround would be the following:
Make sure the server returns verbose error messages so that the user can see what happened and what caused the conflict.
If that does not help, refresh the data. This will get you an updated ETag, and merge the local changes into the "current" server state, but only locally. "Merging" really means that local changes always overwrite remote changes.
The user now has another opportunity to review the data and can submit it again.
A Good Solution
Better is not necessarily good, so here is what you should really do: Never let concurrent modification happen because it is really expensive to handle. This implies that not the developer should address this issue, but the business needs to change the process.
The right question to ask is, "When you replicate data in a distributed system, why do you allow it to be modified concurrently at all?" Typically stakeholders will not like this kind of question, and the appropriate reaction is to work out a conflict resolution process together with them. Only then they will realize how expensive fixing that kind of desynchronization is, and more often than not they will see that adjusting the process is way cheaper than insisting in yet another back-office process to fix the issues it causes. Even if they insist that there is a need for this concurrent modification, they will now understand that it is not your task to sort this out and that they need to invest in a conflict resolution process.
TL;DR
There is no way to compare the server and client state to the server state on the client, but you can do a refresh to retain the local changes and get an updated ETag. The real solution, however, is to rework the business process, because this no longer is a purely technical issue.
The default solution is that SMP or HCPms is detecting errors by ETags. At client side there is no API to manipulate ETags in case of conflicts. A potential solution to implement a kind of diff view on the device would work like this:
Show errors
Cache errors (maybe only in memory?)
delete the errors
do a refresh of the database
build a diff view with current data and cached errors
The idea with
sap.OData.removeHttpClient();
sap.OData.applyHttpClient();
could also work but could be very tricky and may introduce side effects.
Maybe some requests are triggered against the "wrong" backend.
I'm using the VerificationController provided by Raywenderlich in several of my apps, and it's been fantastic. Totally reliable, easy to implement, and effective. It's been live in three of my apps for several months each.
However, two days ago, all three apps suddenly stopped working properly. Every purchase is now being flagged as invalid without exception, both for my live users and for my own test accounts. I've made no changes to the apps or their backends, in fact I've been moving apartments so I literally haven't touched them in a week or more. The change was instantaneous across all three apps, and I've understandably started getting complaints.
The problem seems to be in the checkReceiptSecurity() function (it's always returning NO when it needs to return YES for valid transactions), but the code inside that function is beyond my ability to comprehend. I'm hoping someone has encountered something like this, or perhaps is even experiencing it now, and knows a solution?
As far as I can tell, it seems to be happening on the second of these lines (VerificationController.m line 158).
require(signature_length > offsetof(struct signature_blob, certificate), outLabel);
require(signature_blob_ptr->version == 2, outLabel);
certificate_len = ntohl(signature_blob_ptr->cert_len);
Which are helpfully commented as "Make sure the signature blob is long enough to safely extract the version and cert_len fields, then perform a sanity check on the fields." When it hits the signature_blob_ptr line, it suddenly jumps to the end of the function, which I assume means that it failed a check having to do with the version number of some response from Apple?
Can anyone shed any light on what is happening? This is obviously devastating to my app portfolio, and I need to fix it immediately. I'll disable the verification temporarily and release an update if I have to, but I'd like to find a fix for whatever has changed...
Search for "receipt validation" at https://forums.developer.apple.com
Apparently, a certificate update just made VerificationController to stop working.
The obvious, but not quick at all, fix is to use the more recent receipt validation processing. See: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/releasenotes/General/ValidateAppStoreReceipt/Introduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40010573-CH105-SW1
As for the code above, signature_blob_ptr->version == 3 now. But putting 3 instead of 2 in the code is not a fix as the signature is not 128 bytes long anymore.
I have been developing an iOS app that utilizes the CloudKit feature available for Apple Developers. I've found it to be a wonderful resource, especially since the very day I started designing my backend, the service I was intending to use (Parse) announced it was shutting down. It's very appealing due to it's small learning curve, but I'm starting to notice some annoying little issues here and there so I'm seeking out some experts for advice and help. I posted another CloudKit question a couple days ago, which is still occurring: CloudKit Delete Self Option Not Working. But I want to limit this to a different issue that may be related.
Problem ~ Ever since I started using CloudKit I have noticed that whenever I manually try to edit (delete an entry, remove or add part of a list, even add a DeleteSelf option to a CKReference after creation), and then try to save the change, I get an error message and cannot proceed. Here is a screenshot of the error window that appears:
It's frustrating because anytime I want to manipulate a record to perform some sort of test, I either have to go do it through my app, or just delete the record entirely and create a new one (that I am able to do without issue). I have been just working around this issue for over a month now because it wasn't fatal to my progress. However, I am starting to think that this could be related to my other CloudKit issues, and maybe if I could get some advice on how to fix it I could also solve my other problems. I have file numerous bug reports with Apple, but haven't received a response or seen any changes.
I'd also like to mention that for a very long time now (at least a few days), I've noticed down in the bottom left hand corner of my Dashboard that it is consistently saying that it's "Reindexing Development Data". I remember at first that wasn't an issue, I would get that notification after making a change but it'd go away after the operation is complete. Now it seems to be stuck somewhere inside the process. And this is a chronic issue, it's saying this all the time, even right when I log into my dashboard.
Here is what I'm talking about:
As time goes on I find more small issues with CloudKit, I'm concerned that once I go into production more problems could start manifesting and then I could have a serious issue. I'd love to stick with CloudKit and avoid the learning curve of a different service like Amazon Web Services, but I also don't want to set myself up for failure.
Can anyone help me with this issue, or has anyone else experienced it on a regular basis? Thanks for the advice and help!
Pierce,
I found myself in a similar situation; the issue seemed to be linked to Assets; I had an Asset in my record definition. I and several other I noted reported the re-indexing issue on the apple support website and after about a month it eventually disappeared.
Have you tried resting your database schema completely, snapshot the definition; since you zap it completely and than reset, see inset.
Ultimately I simply created a new project, linked it to cloud kit and use the new container in my original app.
I have just started using an exception logger (EurekaLog) in my (Delphi) application. Now my application sends me lots of error messages via e-mail every day. Here's what I found out so far
lots of duplicate errors
multiple mails from the same PC
While this is highly valuable input to improve my application, I am slightly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information I'm getting.
What are your best practices for handling mails from your application?
If you get to much information as it is currently the case you are not getting any information at all.
So I would say categorize your errors into groups, like WARNINGS, FATAL ERRORS, etc.
Then limit your emails to the most important messages (FATAL).
Apart from that review your logs on a regular basis (day, week ...).
What I've done with my exception logging, which uses madExcept as the core, but my own transport mechanism, is have them all go into a database. The core information is all extracted from each report and put into fields, and the whole report is stored as well. The stack trace is automatically analysed to remove the un-interesting functions, leaving a list of only my functions that have failed.
With this happening automatically, I can now "ignore" each individual message coming in, but see the bigger picture in a grid that shows me simply which functions are having the most problems. I can then focus on them, look for the causes, and fix them.
My display app is also able to filter out reports in builds before a certain number if I choose, so that I can tell it not to include "MyWidget.BadProc" before build 75 once I've fixed it.
This has helped me improve my app, and hit the problems that people found most problematic, without having to guess.
It would very much depend on what the errors are that are being sent back. The obvious one being if there are errors in your application, they need fixing and patches/updates sent to your clients.
If they are exceptions that you know can happen and do not required you to be notified you can add "Exception Filters" in the Eureaka Log options to specify how they should be handled (or ignored!).
Another option is to use EurekaLog Variables (where you can add the exception description etc) in the mail Subject line and then use your email client to filter based on this.
I did this using madExcept. It's really useful for tracking down problems we couldn't reproduce ourselves.
Which makes me ask why you are getting so many? Untrapped exceptions should be few and far between. Especially if the user sees an error dialog. I was responsible for several applications, each with hundreds of installs and I would rarely get e-mail notices.
If they are mostly from a very small number of PCs, I'd work with some of those users to find out what they're doing differently, or how their setup might be generating exceptions.
If they are from all over the place, it's probably a bug that got through your testing.
Either way, use the details to fix your code or, at the very least, anticipate known exceptions and trap them properly (no empty try..except).
Fixing the hot spot problems will cut way down on the number of e-mails you get, making the occasional notice much more manageable.
I think that you should throw out all duplicates. Leave only count of the reports. I.e. if you get, say 100 reports, but there are only 4 unique problems - leave only 4 reports, throw out other 96 reports, but use their count to sort reports by severity. For example, 6 reports for fourth problem, 10 reports for third, 20 for second and 60 for first. So, you should fix first problem with 60 reports and only then switch to second.
I believe that EurekaLog has BugID in its reports. Same problem has the same BugID. This will allow you to sort reports with duplicates. EurekaLog Viewer also can sort out duplicates.
I'm looking to add a 14-Day trial limit to my software. The program has been written in Delphi 7.
Any help would be much appreciated.
You could try Turbopower OnGuard. This is now opensource.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tponguard/
There are several tricks you can use, but none of them 100% fail save.
You can use some kind of licensing mechanism.
You can store the setup time somewhere hidden in the registry.
You can store the setup time in a file (possibly an executable file or dll).
You can store the IP address in a central database and check each time if the 14 days are passed (you need a internet connection for that).
You can create a file (for example a dll) dynamically on your server and have the installer retreive that file. (Be sure to log the IP so a second attempt will not be possible).
But I think the best way, is to give trial versions with limited functionality. For example: No printing, no save of project, or only small projects can be saved.
That way you avoid the hassle and possible clients can take the time to evaluate your project.
EDIT: If you build a mechanism to check against roling back the clock. Be sure to build in a margin, else the program will be locked if you travel back to an other timezone. Or put the clock back in wintertime. I think a margin of 25 hour will cover everything. (And to be at the save side, you can build in a limit else, the user can roll back the time each day.).
But the best way to keep paying customers, is giving good support. I discontinue products if the service is bad.
One of the things you need to guard against with a time-limited application is users' rolling their calendar back so the application still works. One way around this is to store in your hidden registry place (or wherever) a timestamp whenever the application is started up. If the current date/time is ever earlier than the last timestamp recorded by your app, that means the user has rolled the calendar back and you should disable the application.
Time-limitation is a real pain, though, both for the programmer and the user. It's also not a great marketing idea: why go to the trouble of distributing promotional material (which is what your trial version is) that has an expiration date? It would be like a company mailing out advertisements on paper designed to disintegrate after two weeks.
If your trial version is functionally crippled instead, you might still get sales out of it even months or years later.
You can find the similar question here.
On general note i find time restriction much more useful than functionality restriction. As i explained in the comment to Gamecat post
something to be aware of when performing any of these checks. That the date is never GREATER than 14 days from the date you entered in either direction. A common method around most of these types of limits is to set the date a few years in advance, install and run your software, then set the date back to the current time. If you are hard coded to die 14 days from the original start date, then the user has a few years to try your software. Checking the other direction also gives the user at most 28 days.
I have used Armadillo, Asprotect and Winlicense. Both Armadillo and Asprotect have had serious problems, such as being considered viruses/trojans by some AVs, incompatibility problems, etc.
I haven't used Winlicense enough to have much of an opinion, but support is pretty great.
Obviously both are more complete solutions than what you are asking for - they include protection, licensing, keys, etc.
As mentioned by others, sometimes limiting a feature or adding a watermark is the best option. I've added a watermark to one of my programs (STGThumb) and sales went up about 400%...
I would recommend making a trial serial number with timestamp and force user to enter it into software when its installed. You can even automate it by calling server side page after setup is done.
Timestamp in trial serial key allows you to extend their trial if needed.
In addition you can count backwards to avoid user from changing year when installing:
e.g. if you have 14 days trial generated at 15.11.2008 (server time), you can check that locate date must be greater than 1.11.2008 or less than 24.11.2008 always when serial is used or entered.
You can use a professional tool as SoftwareShield.
I use it in our apps and it provides several licence's models, including timelimited demo.
I created my own key generater (separate program for creating keys). The key values are stored in a binary file with the same name as my program, just a different ext. Example: myprogram.key
I store:
Name
Email
RegType (REG, TRIAL)
RegDate
FirstRun (0 OR 1)
The program looks for the file. If it is not there, it throws a message to the user and closes. The key file generator writes the values in encrypted strings which are then written using the built in stream routines.
I create a TRIAL Key that i distribute with the program. If someone registers, i then create them an official REG key.
Anway, if they are running my program, it first looks for the key file. if found, it checks the reg type, if its a regitered version, then the program loads, and the registration info is displayed. I also store a regdate, which i compare with the day the program runs and - if the regdate is greater than or equal to todays date, the user get sprompted to re-register.
If it finds that the key file stores a RegType of TRIAL, then the date they first ran it is stored in the keyfile, and the flag first run is set to 1. They can then use it for 14 days. Each time they run the program, the date stored is compared with the running date.
Very simple process to write. Is it fool proof? NO, nothing is! I have had great success with my app. Its not wide known, so there are no hackers lookijng to hack it.
The best would be to get the registration info from your server.
The big drawback: 1. The server must be ALWAYS online! 2. The user must be connected to internet (when it uses your app).
To get you started you can use a Delphi license management library to help you encrypt the license info and generate a string-based key that you can send to your customers upon registration. There are quite few libraries out there.
Anyway, whatever you send to your server needs to be based on the hardware fingerprint of that computer. Otherwise your license key will leak out on some warez website and everyone will be able to use that key. But if the key is hardware-based it would be useless if it is leaked on Internet.
And don't over do it! There is no such thing as unbreakable software protection. If Microsoft could not do it, you will not do it. Concentrate on adding nice features to your app instead of creating a bullet proof protection system (which is not possible).