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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

#463, Add API to query for open orders of one account in one market #849

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Jul 21, 2018
Merged

#463, Add API to query for open orders of one account in one market #849

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
18 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0d1d389
Add get_account_orders api
cryptocifer Apr 15, 2018
205d389
filter by market and support pagination
cryptocifer Apr 18, 2018
466e150
check limit
cryptocifer Apr 19, 2018
fca8cbf
modify by_account index
cryptocifer Apr 21, 2018
352817f
Adjusted implementation after talk with abit
cryptocifer Apr 30, 2018
a102db8
make this api more commonly by supporting query by price and order_id
cryptocifer Apr 30, 2018
8f41ab0
use optional template to represent optional parameters
cryptocifer May 1, 2018
4c1fd77
fixed some bugs pointed by abit
cryptocifer May 1, 2018
59b5b1b
fix defects
cryptocifer May 2, 2018
ec7ef61
avoid static_cast
cryptocifer May 4, 2018
1e0c369
update
cryptocifer May 9, 2018
50b6d62
update test cases
cryptocifer May 9, 2018
7e67682
fixed some checks and wrap long lines
cryptocifer May 19, 2018
a5077e8
fix code style
cryptocifer May 19, 2018
fc0fc1d
fix indent
cryptocifer May 19, 2018
cbc4d05
initialize upper_itr in common place
cryptocifer May 21, 2018
7f18c59
elimanating pontential perfromance reduction
cryptocifer May 22, 2018
5ff8fea
Merge branch 'develop' into issue463
abitmore Jul 21, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
18 changes: 9 additions & 9 deletions libraries/app/database_api.cpp
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -646,13 +646,13 @@ vector<limit_order_object> database_api_impl::get_account_limit_orders( const st
account = _db.find(fc::variant(name_or_id, 1).as<account_id_type>(1));
else
{
const auto& idx = _db.get_index_type<account_index>().indices().get<by_name>();
auto itr = idx.find(name_or_id);
if (itr != idx.end())
account = &*itr;
const auto& idx = _db.get_index_type<account_index>().indices().get<by_name>();
auto itr = idx.find(name_or_id);
if (itr != idx.end())
account = &*itr;
}
if (account == nullptr)
return results;
return results;

auto assets = lookup_asset_symbols( {base, quote} );
FC_ASSERT( assets[0], "Invalid base asset symbol: ${s}", ("s",base) );
Expand All @@ -662,8 +662,8 @@ vector<limit_order_object> database_api_impl::get_account_limit_orders( const st
auto quote_id = assets[1]->id;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here is the best place to check whether the start price is consistent with base and quote parameters. If not, IMHO best to throw out an exception.


if (ostart_price.valid()) {
FC_ASSERT(ostart_price->base.asset_id == base_id, "Base asset inconsistent with start price");
FC_ASSERT(ostart_price->quote.asset_id == quote_id, "Quote asset inconsistent with start price");
FC_ASSERT(ostart_price->base.asset_id == base_id, "Base asset inconsistent with start price");
FC_ASSERT(ostart_price->quote.asset_id == quote_id, "Quote asset inconsistent with start price");
}

const auto& index_by_account = _db.get_index_type<limit_order_index>().indices().get<by_account>();
Expand All @@ -680,12 +680,13 @@ vector<limit_order_object> database_api_impl::get_account_limit_orders( const st
{
// in case of the order been deleted during page querying
const limit_order_object *p_loo = _db.find(*ostart_id);
upper_itr = index_by_account.upper_bound(std::make_tuple(account->id, price::min(base_id, quote_id)));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change slightly reduced performance under certain circumstances :)

Before this change, if an exception is thrown due to FC_ASSERT below, this database query won't be executed.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

performance reduction means if run into FC_ASSERT, upper_itr initialization is vain here?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correct.


if ( !p_loo )
{
if ( ostart_price.valid() )
{
lower_itr = index_by_account.lower_bound(std::make_tuple(account->id, *ostart_price, *ostart_id));
upper_itr = index_by_account.upper_bound(std::make_tuple(account->id, ostart_price->min()));
}
else
{
Expand All @@ -703,7 +704,6 @@ vector<limit_order_object> database_api_impl::get_account_limit_orders( const st
FC_ASSERT(loo.seller == account->get_id(), "Order not owned by specified account");

lower_itr = index_by_account.lower_bound(std::make_tuple(account->id, loo.sell_price, *ostart_id));
upper_itr = index_by_account.upper_bound(std::make_tuple(account->id, loo.sell_price.min()));
}
}
else
Expand Down