Re: [Quickfix-developers] Messages not reaching application (MessageCracker) layer
Brought to you by:
orenmnero
From: Rick L. <ric...@gm...> - 2008-12-02 20:11:30
|
What I meant to say below was: "What appears to be happening, in very rare instances, is I'm not getting this ExecutionReport for some *orders *" On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Rick Lane <ric...@gm...> wrote: > Greetings, > > I've recently discovered a very unsettling bug in my trading platform, and > I wanted to ask a fairly general question to see if this has bene seen > anywhere else (I'm assuming it's a bug in *my *code, but it can't hurt to > ask the group)... > > When a New Order Single message is generated by the user, I don't send an > acknowledgment of that order until I get the ExecutionReport confirming the > order, in my > > onMessage(ExecutionReport message, QuickFix.SessionID session) > > MessageCracker message handler. Whenever I get this confirmation, I add > this particular order to my database, to my order books, etc. > > What appears to be happening, in very rare instances, is I'm not getting > this ExecutionReport for some fills. What this means is, my platform > doesn't know the order exists, but it's still working in the Exchange's eyes > -- so there's not even a way to cancel the order unless I call the exchange > or use their web-based front-end to cancel the order. > > We run some automated trading applications that can have upwards of a *million > *orders in a given day (constantly adding/pulling orders, etc.) -- and > this bug occurs, usually, once every two days. So it's a very low > percentage of the time. > > I've spoken with the exchange, and they are showing that ExecutionReports > *were *in fact sent (and QuickFix would issue a resend request if the > message wasn't sent and a subsequent message had a higher sequence number). > Since this isn't occurring, I'm wondering if there is some way the message > might be received by the QuickFix layer and just isn't sent up to the > MessageCracker layer. I have try-catch blocks in my handler, and no > exceptions are being thrown, so I don't know how I could be missing this > acknowledgment. > > Has anyone seen anything even remotely similar? > |