API Support Forum
OEC API > Order Execution > OCO's being canceled, not by user, but by an existing position or by provider
Author Topic: OCO's being canceled, not by user, but by an existing position or by provider
(3 messages, Page 1 of 1)
Moderators: VPfau
CWeber984
Posts: 226
Joined: Apr 24, 2012


Posted: May 09, 2013 @ 04:15 PM             Msg. 1 of 3
In the last two weeks, a couple of customers have been calling in because in their Demo account, OCO's are "disappearing". I'm using sim.openecry.com's reporting to track what occurred.

I know that if I created an OSO, say a STOP with a STP and LMT OCO, if I cancel the entry STP order, then the OCO is canceled as well. The txt in Order Details for the OSO orders say they were canceled by the order id of the entry STP.

(1) A user's OCOs were canceled by an existing position. I'm not aware that that is possible. This occurred on Thursday 5/2 at 17:39 (OEC server time). Example:
- user: MLee901
- orderId: 106277616

The linked orders 106277617 and 106277618 were canceled "by (their parent) 106277616". Their parent had become a position 12 hours earlier.

(2) A user's order details state that the linked orders were canceled, actually "Deleted by provider." on Sunday morning 5/5 at 09:00. Example:
- user: CTrumpore85
- orderId: 106397678

Based on the comment, (2) might be where the OEC server was flushed. Is that correct?

But I have no idea what occurred in case (1).

Can you inform me a bit about case (1) and why the position cancelled the OCO orders? And confirm that "Deleted by provider" means that the server was flushed?

Thanks

CHW
VictorV
Posts: 746
Joined: May 08, 2007


Posted: May 09, 2013 @ 04:48 PM             Msg. 2 of 3
We are looking a reason of unexpected cancel of 106277617 and 106277618.

Unfortunately, we clean up futures sim orders over weekend, including GTC - this is the reason of cancellation of #106397678.

Victor Vins
Lead Software Developer
CWeber984
Posts: 226
Joined: Apr 24, 2012


Posted: May 09, 2013 @ 10:37 PM             Msg. 3 of 3
Thanks, thats helpful. The other case (1) is still a mystery, can you see what occurred there?

CHW