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.

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

app: improve user orders table on markets view #297

Closed
buck54321 opened this issue Apr 27, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #378
Closed

app: improve user orders table on markets view #297

buck54321 opened this issue Apr 27, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #378

Comments

@buck54321
Copy link
Member

buck54321 commented Apr 27, 2020

There are a number of ways that the orders table on /markets can be improved.

  1. Orders should be sorted newest first
  2. Old orders should either be removed, be removable, or have their own table.
  3. It should say whether they are market or limit orders.
  4. The filled column indicates how much of the order has matched, but we also need to know how much has settled, so maybe a settled column, also with % units.
  5. Clicking on an order should display information about it's matches. The match data could be shown in a modal dialog, or in the table itself by inserting the info to display as a row below the order's row.
  6. Right now, only orders for the currently displayed market are shown. A client might want to view all active orders, regardless of market. Should it be an option?
@chappjc
Copy link
Member

chappjc commented Apr 30, 2020

Assigned to @kevinstl, although not with github since he's not in the decred org and it won't let me.

@chappjc
Copy link
Member

chappjc commented May 19, 2020

Related, an order details page is probably needed to do things like investigate the various swaps (transactions, etc.), get the full order IDs and match IDs for support purposes, etc.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants