Pindexer metrics fix #4981
Merged
Pindexer metrics fix #4981
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We were doing the volume calculation wrong when mixing candles for different pair directions, resulting in abnormally large volumes, since we were *multiplying* by the price, instead of dividing.
Previously, we were not correctly considering just the window for the aggregate summary, making all values erroneously the same.
erwanor
approved these changes
Jan 11, 2025
6 tasks
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Describe your changes
This fixes two bugs in pindexer:
Bug 1. stemmed from multiplying by a price rather than dividing by it when mixing two directions of a candle.
Bug 2. was just a missing filter in an SQL query.
To test, run pindexer again, and do some sanity checks on the aggregate summary, and pair summaries for pairs like USDC / UM.
Checklist before requesting a review
I have added guiding text to explain how a reviewer should test these changes.
If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the "consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason: