Proper fixes and terminology to get us ready for historical position lifetimes as described in #345.
More to come in terms of explanation... or not 😂
pps.toml format changes:
[x] could we maybe just drop the top level .size and be_price values ?
so we can't (yet), because the ems uses the Position type internally as well and doesn't track all the
clears (since that would be more msging overhead) so I think maybe having these is fine but we should probably
change .be_price -> .ppu?
and instead just arrange the clears table to make these rolling values more obvious?, for eg:
which would be easiest to read if we sort clears reverse chronological so that the most recent trades (and thus their ppu and accum_size entries would be closest to the top?
[x] it follows that maybe we should adjust the column order for each clears entry maybe to: dt, ppu, accum_size, price, size, cost, tid?
~[ ] i was hoping to have an indent per account (mentioned it in #345 as part of a custom encoder) such that it's distinguishable which pps are grouped together by backend, my only concern is then the clears table entries will be a bit cramped horizontally?~ delaying this one again
Proper fixes and terminology to get us ready for historical position lifetimes as described in #345.
More to come in terms of explanation... or not 😂
pps.toml
format changes:.size
andbe_price
values ?Position
type internally as well and doesn't track all the clears (since that would be more msging overhead) so I think maybe having these is fine but we should probably change.be_price
->.ppu
?which would be easiest to read if we sort clears reverse chronological so that the most recent trades (and thus their
ppu
andaccum_size
entries would be closest to the top?dt, ppu, accum_size, price, size, cost, tid
?