StochRSI on development branch

[einarjohnson]

I have a quick question. Is there a reason the StochRSI indicator on the development branch does not allow for the talib to be used?
See: https://github.com/twopirllc/pandas-ta/blob/development/pandas_ta/momentum/stochrsi.py#L67

It calls the existing rsi momentum indicator but there is no way to specify that the talib should be used in this calculation.

[einarjohnson]

Furthermore, I have been seeing some really weird problems with the stochrsi implementation where we get negative values returned. These can be seen in this parquet file: https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20240416wn5njs8t/tiqeztPH
I am using the Close column to calculate the stochrsi and I am only passing in the close argument and not overriding any of the input parameters to the stochrsi function. The Stochrsi column in the parquet is the first column returned by the
stochrsi pandas_ta function. You can see there are some negative values there in the list which is super strange.

P.S: I also think the documentation for the stochrsi function needs to be amended because it lists up high/low parameters
that are not defined in the function signature.

[twopirllc]

Hi @einarjohnson

Apologies for the delay...

I have a quick question. Is there a reason the StochRSI indicator on the development branch does not allow for the talib to be used?

There could be a couple of reasons why talib rsi was not an option back when stochrsi was included, but at this point in time it should be optionable. Just need a PR for it to get it included.

Furthermore, I have been seeing some really weird problems with the stochrsi implementation where we get negative values returned. ... You can see there are some negative values there in the list which is super strange.

Ya that is weird. 🤔 After I get through some of the outstanding PRs, I can look into it more.

P.S: I also think the documentation for the stochrsi function needs to be amended because it lists up high/low parameters that are not defined in the function signature.

Naturally. All documentation is in flux. 🤣 Some much to do, so little time. 😒

KJ

[einarjohnson]

no worries about the delay. i will try to contribute when I get the time.