-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
Yieldmo Adapter: Add support for structured user agent #9380
Merged
ChrisHuie
merged 6 commits into
prebid:master
from
yieldmo:feature/FS-10630-add-support-for-structured-user-agent
Jan 9, 2023
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this is under
bidderRequest.ortb2.device.sua
. Also, why not just merge in everything frombidderRequest.ortb2.device
, or even just the wholeortb2
object?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We don't want to include extra fields which are not going to be used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The tradeoff is some unused fields - or extra code (and slower page loads) for the pub, and extra work for you on every new feature.
But beside that,
device
is not underbidRequest.ortb2Imp
- it's underbidderRequest.ortb2
. (Sorry for repeating myself, I'm not sure I made it clear enough).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are trying to figure out if there is any downside in passing entire ortb2 object but now I have made changes to pass entire device object. Sorry for not understanding it earlier, Thank you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you find a roadblock (beside not wanting to change things until you need to, which I do think is a legitimate reason), please let us know - since currently that's the direction we are recommending.
I am aware of one case of an exchange that would not accept fields it didn't know about (#9250) - the ORTB 2.6 spec requires endpoints to ignore such fields, so in the long term that should not be a problem (but it may be for you at the moment, so beware).
You would also give up the opportunity to do validation on publisher inputs, but I don't think each adapter doing independent validation is desirable - it's code duplication in the best case scenario, and in practice I think it would be a major source of confusion if the same configuration is interpreted differently by different exchanges.