Truncate M values in Trading History #2364
Merged
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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
avclarke
previously approved these changes
May 23, 2023
avclarke
reviewed
May 23, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@LeifuChen the spec mentions 1M and above but the screenshots shows also thousands being truncated, do we need to make it only truncate 1M and above?
Good catch, I think we should only truncate 1.00M and upwards in the Trades History table, truncating thousands does not look very useful: 
|
Thanks. I will update the logic. |
platschi
approved these changes
May 23, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
We should truncate values over >1.000.000 to 1.00M in the trading history so that the trading history is readable.
Related issue
closes Kwenta/kwenta-private#95
Motivation and Context
How Has This Been Tested?
Screenshots (if appropriate):