oneVideo Adapter End2End Testing Parameter Support (SAPR-13942)

[adam-browning]

Type of change

• [ x] Feature

Description of change

oneVideoBidAdapter now supports a new parameter to force outbound bid-request settings for self severed testing By passing "bid.params.video.e2etest = true".
Important: 'e2etest: ture` is a sumpliment to the mandatory parameters, it cannot replace them.

When applying e2etest: ture the adapter will switch to testing mode and send an outbound bid-request to our test our US west coast server "HBExchange" Exchange endpoint
The feature overrides base settings like ENDPOINT, width, height, pubid, page, referrer to minimize testing costs and time on the publishers end.

Test parameters for validating bids

var adUnits = [
    {
        code: 'video1',
          mediaTypes: {
            video: {
                  context: 'instream',
                  playerSize: [480, 640]
            }
          },
          bids: [
            {
              bidder: 'oneVideo',
              params: {
                video: {
                  playerWidth: 480,
                  playerHeight: 640,
                  mimes: ['video/mp4', 'application/javascript'],
                  api: [2],
                  e2etest: true
                },
                pubId: 'Whatever'
                }
            }
          ]
      }
  ]

Other information

Hi @DeepthiNeeladri,
Could you please review this feature
Thank you!
Adam

[adam-browning]

AFAIK, the failed ci/circleci: build test is Not related to the changes of this PR
Failed spec id: https://github.com/prebid/Prebid.js/blob/master/test/spec/modules/prebidServerBidAdapter_spec.js#L1990

[DeepthiNeeladri]

@adam-browning LGTM

[adam-browning]

All tests and checks pass after pulling upstream and merging master today

[jsnellbaker]

Hi @adam-browning

I had a quick question regarding the value being passed in the request object when this e2e test flag is enabled. Please take a look when you have the chance.

Thanks!

[jsnellbaker]

@adam-browning

Thanks for the confirmation. When you get a chance, can you please take a look at the new conflicts and resolve them? They're likely the result from the other PR just getting merged.

We should be good to merge this PR once the conflicts are cleaned up.

[adam-browning]

Hi @jsnellbaker,
I have resolved the conflicts so we should be good to go.
Thanks for your help

[adam-browning]

Hi @jsnellbaker,
When you get a chance, could you please review the final changes.
Thank you for your help!

[jsnellbaker]

Thanks for the updates. LGTM