-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 146
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.
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
[Bug]: error during websocket communication: 4 validation errors for TradeUpdate #371
Comments
+1. Was about to post this as well. Here's the issue I'm getting:
|
I am going to update my code for use |
Yea that sounds like a good idea, I really dislike pydantic. Where exactly are you putting raw_data=True? |
It can be specified as a kwarg when initializing an instance of the |
Thank you for the reporting and sorry for the inconvenience. |
released https://github.com/alpacahq/alpaca-py/releases/tag/v0.13.1. edit: sorry, missed to bump versions. so should be v0.13.1 |
Now it works just fine (with v0.13.0+), no more pydantic validation errors on events |
It works! Thank you for fixing.
Robert Grzesik 347-635-3416
…On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:38 AM hiohiohio ***@***.***> wrote:
released https://github.com/alpacahq/alpaca-py/releases/tag/v0.13.0.
Can you please try to use the new version?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#371 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIYQKYQRT5LNSWG7FDHP2DYBNJGVAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6ONZRWSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTOOBSGM3TQMZQGU>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Is there an existing issue for this?
Current Behavior
When subscribing to
TradingStream
with alpaca-py==0.12.0, if I buy say 1 share of SPY (or do any other trading activity), I get the following error:Expected Behavior
I am expecting to receive a
TradeUpdate
object. This worked fine with v0.10.0 of alpaca-py.SDK Version I encountered this issue in
Steps To Reproduce
Filled out the Steps to Reproduce section?
Anything else?
There was a similar bug #210 in the past.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: