[Futures] update API and fix simulator #1126
Conversation
GuillaumeDSM
force-pushed
the
futures
branch
4 times, most recently
from
d16d9b6 to
3ab2064
Compare
GuillaumeDSM
force-pushed
the
futures
branch
4 times, most recently
from
4abe237 to
893f561
Compare
GuillaumeDSM
changed the title
GuillaumeDSM
changed the title
| else enums.PositionMode.ONE_WAY | ||
| ) | ||
| if position_mode is enums.PositionMode.HEDGE: | ||
| # todo when handling helge positions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| # todo when handling helge positions | |
| # todo when handling hedge positions |
😉
| raise NotImplementedError(amount_type) | ||
| if context.exchange_manager.is_future: | ||
| if position_kw.is_in_one_way_position_mode(context): | ||
| # use abs() since short positions have negative size |
| decimal.Decimal("16.66666666666666666666666667") | ||
| decimal.Decimal("116.6666666666666666666666667") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please explain this change? A price change has no impact in the bankruptcy price? (this test seems to have a 20 price and the second one has a 100 price and the bankruptcy price does not change)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right it does not change compared the the next line because with_mark_price=True so we use the position mark_price and not the given price arguement.
The previous value was due to a mistake in the ternary operator in get_bankruptcy_price impl
| decimal.Decimal("16.66666666666666666666666667") | ||
| decimal.Decimal("116.6666666666666666666666667") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right it does not change compared the the next line because with_mark_price=True so we use the position mark_price and not the given price arguement.
The previous value was due to a mistake in the ternary operator in get_bankruptcy_price impl
| @@ -217,13 +217,11 @@ async def test_get_bankruptcy_price_with_long(future_trader_simulator_with_defau | |||
| assert position_inst.get_bankruptcy_price(position_inst.entry_price, position_inst.side, with_mark_price=True) == decimal.Decimal(50) | |||
| default_contract.set_current_leverage(constants.ONE_HUNDRED) | |||
| assert position_inst.get_bankruptcy_price(position_inst.entry_price, position_inst.side) == decimal.Decimal("99.00990099009900990099009901") | |||
| assert position_inst.get_bankruptcy_price(position_inst.entry_price, position_inst.side, with_mark_price=True) == decimal.Decimal("0.9900990099009900990099009901") | |||
| assert position_inst.get_bankruptcy_price(position_inst.entry_price, position_inst.side, with_mark_price=True) == decimal.Decimal('99.00990099009900990099009901') | |||
| await position_inst.update(update_size=constants.ONE_HUNDRED, | |||
| mark_price=decimal.Decimal(2) * constants.ONE_HUNDRED) | |||
| assert position_inst.get_bankruptcy_price(position_inst.entry_price, position_inst.side) == decimal.Decimal("99.00990099009900990099009901") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
here is an example of a bankruptcy_price that changes according to the given price (with_mark_price is unset and therefore false by default, we get a different price from the next line)
No description provided.