Any clue you can give on which instrument generate it ? At what time ?
How many rows did you look for ?
What did you choose for isSmartDepth ?
I would be very interested to know if you still see updateMktDepth messages arriving after your 317 for the same reqid. This is a sine qua non condition to avoid re-doing a request

I don't see any rationalized method to avoid it as I see this as a message from IB that should be implemented (many errors are to be seen as message).
Nothing I foresee that can be done from client side, but if I have to guess I would say that isSmartDepth? may influence this.

The full message is "Market depth data has been RESET. Please empty deep book contents before applying any new entries."
As I can't reproduce at will, I can only tell you what I implemented as a provision: If I receive a 317 then I do what IB asks:
I purge my bank, and de-facto expect to only receive types 2, or 1 only after I received a first set of new insert (0).? At least I assert that next new message will be an insert.
Note:
I have a counter averaging the number of entries I should expect and restart the algo only once I reach this threshold/2? (to avoid taking decision on too few entries) this of course depend upon your algo.
What I didn't do and probably should, is to call again to update the exch mapping. It may have changed (unlikely that it did change a lot, hence lack of motivation to finish this part, also this require a new request) Anyway at least a mapping to an unknown exchange throw an exception.

Unless mistaken this approach doesn't need to restart a new request (as opposed to error like the 316) hence can stay in same processing thread, but again it's a provision and I have/had no method to QA it

开云体育

"" in the error message refers to the FIX protocol TWS/IBGW use when they communicate with IBKR. It's a "price" field, so you need to check your order objects for any missing or malformed price value.

闯ü谤驳别苍

We don't have enough detail about your setup to give you a definitive answer, but my best guess is that your client does not properly manage the next valid orderId. It is not sufficient that you simply start at the "nextValidId" you receive during connection and increment from there. That is necessary but not sufficient.

• ... it is necessary to use an order ID with new orders which is greater than all previous order IDs returned to the client application in? or callbacks

When your client connects to TWS/IBKR, TWS API sends you the next valid orderId based upon the client ID you use. If that clientId has previously been used (does not matter how long ago), nextValidId will be one larger than the orderId of the last order that clientId has placed (whenever that was). If the clientId has never been used or no orders have been placed with that clientId, nextValidId will likely be 1.

• MAX( internalNextValidOrderId, orderId from openOrder or orderStatus + 1 )

So your next orderId must be higher than the id for any order your client has placed or has been related to.

闯ü谤驳别苍

Got multiple errors like this lately:
ibapi.wrapper: ANSWER error {'reqId': 161494, 'errorCode': 201, 'errorString': 'Order rejected - reason:Message must contain field # 44', 'advancedOrderRejectJson': ''}

How is it possible to determine which field is #44 that is causing this error?

Corresponding request:
ibapi.client: REQUEST placeOrder {'orderId': 161494, 'contract': 1695173701456: 0,UVXY,STK,,0,,,SMART,,USD,,,False,,,,combo:, 'order': 1697515523088: 161494,0,0: LMT BUY 100.000000@0 }

ibapi.client: SENDING placeOrder b'\x00\x00\x01Z3\x00161494\x000\x00UVXY\x00STK\x00\x000.0\x00\x00\x00SMART\x00\x00USD\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00BUY\x00100.0\x00LMT\x000.0\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x000\x00\x001\x000\x000\x000\x000\x000\x000\x000\x00\x000\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x000\x00\x00-1\x000\x00\x00\x001\x00\x00\x000\x000\x00\x000\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x000\x00\x00\x00\x00\x000\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x000\x00\x00\x000\x000\x00\x00\x000\x00\x000\x000\x000\x000\x00\x001.7976931348623157e+308\x001.7976931348623157e+308\x001.7976931348623157e+308\x001.7976931348623157e+308\x001.7976931348623157e+308\x000\x00\x00\x00\x001.7976931348623157e+308\x00\x00\x00\x00\x000\x000\x000\x00\x002147483647\x002147483647\x000\x00\x00\x00'

开云体育

I ran unattended for a few years to 2020 and I am interested in doing so again with a different algorithm and substantially different code-base. I used to use Linode, Ubuntu + ubuntu desktop, vnc4server, and Java. As you can see my costs were low. This arrangement was suitable but a little unsatisfactory. To list some disadvantages, I would say that this arrangement seemed risky to me since Linode didn’t offer the GUI desktop for Ubuntu by default and if I recall correctly, IB Gateway and IB TWS didn’t work without them. Defaults are important to me since defaults are better supported and I know I am making a generalization but sometimes generalizations are a guide to risk. The other disadvantage, and I only say this from a personal point of view, is that I like the Visual Studio C# combination better than the Eclipse Java combination. One of the positives is that Linode pricing seemed easier to understand than AWS and Azure.

I am researching a switch to .NET. If the community has any experience with making a change like this, I would appreciate comments from the community on how much your costs increased on a percentage basis. Linode has some general cost guidance but of course a community that uses TWS/Gateway unattended would have more specific knowledge that would help me.

Nevermind... Apparently the documentation folder in the unzipped file is not the only documentation. Elsewhere IB says...

"It is important to note that the connection is only insecure between the user to their own localhost. In other words, only the connection on the local computer is insecure. However, requests sent from the locahost to Interactive Brokers will maintain a secure connection."