Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Add Binance backend #170
Add Binance backend #170
Changes from 2 commits
d327584
7e49362
604e195
7b26bd4
169420b
a0dfdd9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
We should make an issue about possibly moving to nanoseconds as
int
for all time stamps.I see no reason to not be thinking about UHFT down the road.
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.
This felt really really clunky.
What's a better way to one shot validate these?
I don't know if you can unpack
*bar
in apydantic
model..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.
Yeah I mucked with this for a while and got nowhere too fancy 😂
Since our dtype is technically matching the dataclass we could actually probably just use
asdict
if we wanted to do it this way: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.
Using a
pydantic.BaseModel.dict()
would require array unpacking eachbar
into dict form since I still don't thinkpydantic.BaseModel
supports theOHLC(*bar)
style creation.Not sure it'd be worth it anyway for readability.
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.
Oh that was my other question: can we do similar
BaseModel
unpacking/validation here forl1
messages?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.
This is definitely part of writing up the backend spec.