-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
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
Unit test for broker with multiple submit twap orders #1104
Unit test for broker with multiple submit twap orders #1104
Conversation
Lets follow the process of naming the PR correctly as we did in the previous in the PRs. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
High level looks good. Lets improve minor things based on the reviews of the previous PRs.
One question from my side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Few Changes
6ffc72b
to
a042636
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The logic looks good but the code is to complicated to read right now. Lets use a for loop to call _submit_twap_orders
and check results as I see we are repeating the same code twice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good Job. Few changes.
Just a note we don't leave blank lines in-between code so just remove where ever applicable
7965757
to
976acc1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Few Nits
25854d7
to
4854961
Compare
cbbdde6
to
943655e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1 Nit. LGTM
...xchangeWithDynamicScheduler.test_submit_twap_orders_multiple_submission/tmp.final.actual.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...hangeWithDynamicScheduler.test_submit_twap_orders_multiple_submission/tmp.final.expected.txt
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
4f7d6bd
to
84319ee
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
1 Change. LGTM
...thDynamicScheduler.test_submit_twap_orders_multiple_submission/output/actual_orders1.txt.tmp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…WithDynamicScheduler.test_submit_twap_orders_multiple_submission/output/actual_orders1.txt.tmp
This PR is for the Issue #1103
This is the first draft to see if the solution is correct.
We are testing broker with two twap orders being submitted by just one instance of broker.
I didn't use test_submit_twap_orders as it creates one instance of broker inside the function and calls submit_twap_orders once
Ran pytest and it passes.
Ran the linter too.
@samarth9008 please check and let me if the solution seems correct