Skip to content
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

Let's get kraken (🙄 ), on orders.. #201

Closed
goodboy opened this issue Jun 18, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Let's get kraken (🙄 ), on orders.. #201

goodboy opened this issue Jun 18, 2021 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
clearing auction and mm tech: EMS, OMS, algo-trading data-layer real-time and historical data processing and storage feature-request New feature or request integration external stack and/or lib augmentations testing

Comments

@goodboy
Copy link
Contributor

goodboy commented Jun 18, 2021

As mentioned, we need new and improved kraken support for orders after the changes to the clearing system to include strict typed messaging semantics as per #190. There was ad-hoc support for this before that PR landed but the code is imo not usuable and was always a bit hacky by fitting too much to the ib backend schema that was in place (due to it being the first broker with full live trading support).

This issue is more or less a duplicate of #194 but for our kraken backend so please use the detailed resources in that issue as a reference as well (and vice versa if anything useful get's stuck here @guilledk).


The technical details of how to implement the 2 way streaming endpoint trades_dialogue() is in the first bullet in #194 and both the paper engine and current ib backend implementation should be used as reference.


Additional resources from chat:

Any questions please do ping.

@goodboy goodboy added data-layer real-time and historical data processing and storage feature-request New feature or request integration external stack and/or lib augmentations testing clearing auction and mm tech: EMS, OMS, algo-trading labels Jun 18, 2021
@goodboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

goodboy commented Jun 18, 2021

Oh, please branch off the new asyncify_input_modes branch as it will make manual testing far easier

disregard, everything is on master now.

@iamzoltan
Copy link
Contributor

iamzoltan commented Apr 9, 2022

are there remaining sections in this issue that we can tack onto to #290? or should we keep this issue open?

@goodboy
Copy link
Contributor Author

goodboy commented Apr 18, 2022

@iamzoltan no I think this is mostly first-draft complete right?

This can obviously serve as a source for driving refinements in #290, but also I do think we may end up wanting the ws APIs supported for latency down the road?

I think for now this is definitely complete though 🥳

@goodboy goodboy closed this as completed Apr 18, 2022
@iamzoltan
Copy link
Contributor

sweet, I thought so. There are points here I haven't addressed, which was why I asked, but keeping it for reference is a good idea.

on the to the next PR.

@iamzoltan iamzoltan mentioned this issue Apr 18, 2022
6 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clearing auction and mm tech: EMS, OMS, algo-trading data-layer real-time and historical data processing and storage feature-request New feature or request integration external stack and/or lib augmentations testing
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants