Upgrade Bid Adjustments #2678

AlexBVolcy · 2023-04-03T16:44:20Z

Addresses this feature: #2085

The goal of this feature is to add support for bid adjustments that works differently and is more complex than the existing bidadjustmentfactors.

This feature allows bidadjustments to be defined on the request at the path ext.prebid.bidadjustments. Within this definition, bidadjustments will specify the mediatype, the bidder name, the dealID, and finally an adjustment array.

This adjustment array will contain information that'll be used to the adjust the bid price of a particular bid that matches the given mediatype, bidder name, and dealID.

An entry in the adjustment array will include the following information: an adjtype, a value, and sometimes a currency

Adjtype refers to the type of adjustment that'll be occurring. A mulitplier adjtype will result in the bid price being multiplied by the given value. A static adjtype will result in the bid price being overwritten by the given value (after currency conversions). A cpm adjtype, will result in the given value being subtracted from the bid price.

VeronikaSolovei9

Local testing looks good (except of warnings), code looks good overall. Added some comments.

exchange/exchange.go

exchange/exchange_test.go

openrtb_ext/request.go

exchange/bidder_test.go

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-11T04:42:38Z

exchange/bidder.go

 						originalBidCpm := 0.0
 						if bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid != nil {
 							originalBidCpm = bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price
 							bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price = bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price * adjustmentFactor * conversionRate
+							bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price = applyAdjustmentArray(adjArray, bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price, bidResponse.Currency, reqInfo)


What do you think about this idea: combine GetAdjustmentArray and applyAdjustmentArray in one function like processBidAdjustments?
Can you store all bid adjustments related functions in a separated package (except of validation maybe)?
I had similar comment about ad server targeting recently :)

I like that idea! I think I'd want to bring it up during team time first before going through with this :)

I realized after thinking about this, and I think we need to keep these two functions separate. The GetAdjustmentArray function is needed on it's own to satisfy the requirement of:

"Any module that needs to reverse the adjustment (e.g. floors), will need a way to get the relevant adjustment array and they can walk the adjustments backwards. This implies that there should be a function similar to the Floors getFloor() function that allows callers to supply dimension values and get the adjustments array."

You can still have GetAdjustmentArray as a separate function and call it first in the new function that will consolidate
GetAdjustmentArray and applyAdjustmentArray. It seems like a logical way to do this, it will minimize functions calls from requestBid, it's already complicated. And also adjArray is only used in applyAdjustmentArray.

openrtb_ext/request.go

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

VeronikaSolovei9

Thank you for addressing comments, looks good! Added some more comments and I also missed the case with decimal places while testing it previous time.

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-13T17:59:12Z

exchange/exchange.go

+	mergedBidAdj, err := mergeBidAdjustments(r.BidRequestWrapper, r.Account.BidAdjustments)
+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, err
+	}
+	if valid := mergedBidAdj.ValidateBidAdjustments(); !valid {
+		mergedBidAdj = nil
+	}
+


Do you think this can be combined in one function?

By "combining" I don't mean to literally merge the code from both of this functions. You can still call them separately, but from another consolidates function. Hope it makes sense.
Something like this (or maybe you will come up with better solution while coding it):

func ProcessBidAdjustments(...){ mergeBidAdjustments() validateBidAdjustments() }

I like this idea, I'll update to combine them!

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-13T18:00:40Z

exchange/bidder.go

+			if err != nil {
+				return originalBidPrice
+			}
+			bidPrice = bidPrice - convertedVal


Is this addressed?
Also result should be rounded to 2 decimal digits, right?
In my test I have a bid price = 12.00001,
Adjustment:

{ "adjtype": "cpm", "value": 12, "currency": "USD" }

And result turns out to be this: "price": 0.000009999999999621423,

UPD: from requirements: Round to 4 decimal places.

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-13T18:07:10Z

exchange/bidder.go

 						originalBidCpm := 0.0
 						if bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid != nil {
 							originalBidCpm = bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price
 							bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price = bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price * adjustmentFactor * conversionRate
+							bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price = applyAdjustmentArray(adjArray, bidResponse.Bids[i].Bid.Price, bidResponse.Currency, reqInfo)


You can still have GetAdjustmentArray as a separate function and call it first in the new function that will consolidate
GetAdjustmentArray and applyAdjustmentArray. It seems like a logical way to do this, it will minimize functions calls from requestBid, it's already complicated. And also adjArray is only used in applyAdjustmentArray.

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-15T06:03:28Z

About bidPrice = bidPrice - convertedVal
Round the final number to 4 decimal digits first and then check if it's if bidPrice <= 0 {.
In my example result after subtraction is 0.000009999999999621423 which rounds to 0.0000 and it leads to bid rejection and this message in debug logs:

"errors": {
            "appnexus": [
                {
                    "code": 999,
                    "message": "Bid \"9109836616608581859\" does not contain positive 'price' which is required since there is no deal set for this bid"
                }
            ]
        },

Also roundTo := math.Pow(10, amountOfDecimalPlaces) looks like a good candidate to be a constant:
const roundTo = 10000

Here is my final end of this function:

...
rounded := math.Round(bidPrice*roundTo) / roundTo // Returns Bid Price rounded to 4 decimal places

if rounded <= 0 {
	return originalBidPrice
}
return rounded

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-15T06:08:10Z

Do you think it makes sense to move all new functions related to bid adjustments from bidder.go and exchange.go to a separate file in exchange directory?

AlexBVolcy · 2023-04-17T22:06:55Z

@VeronikaSolovei9 just pushed a commit that moves adjustment functions that were present in bidder.go and exchange.go into it's own file in exchange directory. Also moved tests tied to those functions into their own file as well. I also updated the rounding logic!

AlexBVolcy · 2023-04-17T22:33:05Z

Getting this failure on the new test file I added:

exchange/bidadjustments_test.go:6:2: no required module provides package github.com/prebid/openrtb/v17/openrtb2; to add it: go get github.com/prebid/openrtb/v17/openrtb2

Just want to highlight this for tomorrow's team time

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-18T03:56:31Z

It feels like you need to merge your branch with latest master. Even if there are no conflicts.
There are should not be any usages of github.com/prebid/openrtb/v17/openrtb2

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-18T04:00:26Z

exchange/bidadjustments_test.go

+import (
+	"testing"
+
+	"github.com/prebid/openrtb/v17/openrtb2"


Use "github.com/prebid/openrtb/v19/openrtb2" instead

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2023-04-18T04:01:43Z

Thank you for addressing comments! Changes look good :)

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

openrtb_ext/request.go

endpoints/openrtb2/test_utils.go

endpoints/openrtb2/sample-requests/valid-whole/exemplary/bidadjustments-static.json

bsardo · 2023-04-19T13:48:57Z

openrtb_ext/request.go

+func (bidAdj *ExtRequestPrebidBidAdjustments) GetAdjustmentArray(bidType BidType, bidderName BidderName, dealID string) []Adjustments {
+	if bidAdj.MediaType.Banner != nil && bidType == BidTypeBanner {
+		if adjArray := getAdjustmentArrayForMediaType(bidAdj.MediaType.Banner, bidderName.String(), dealID); adjArray != nil {
+			return adjArray
+		}
+	}
+	if bidAdj.MediaType.Video != nil && bidType == BidTypeVideo {
+		if adjArray := getAdjustmentArrayForMediaType(bidAdj.MediaType.Video, bidderName.String(), dealID); adjArray != nil {
+			return adjArray
+		}
+	}
+	if bidAdj.MediaType.Audio != nil && bidType == BidTypeAudio {
+		if adjArray := getAdjustmentArrayForMediaType(bidAdj.MediaType.Audio, bidderName.String(), dealID); adjArray != nil {
+			return adjArray
+		}
+
+	}
+	if bidAdj.MediaType.Native != nil && bidType == BidTypeNative {
+		if adjArray := getAdjustmentArrayForMediaType(bidAdj.MediaType.Native, bidderName.String(), dealID); adjArray != nil {
+			return adjArray
+		}
+	}
+	if bidAdj.MediaType.WildCard != nil {
+		if adjArray := getAdjustmentArrayForMediaType(bidAdj.MediaType.WildCard, bidderName.String(), dealID); adjArray != nil {
+			return adjArray
+		}
+	}
+	return nil
+}


Nitpick: I think you can reduce the verbosity here significantly by introducing a local variable, let's call it adjustments, that is set based on your five if conditions.
Then finish with something like:

if adjustments == nil { return nil } return getAdjustmentArrayForMediaType(adjustments, bidderName.String(), dealID)

Edit: my comment here may be moot given the potential design modifications you'll have to make for rule selection given specificity.

bsardo · 2023-04-19T16:24:34Z

openrtb_ext/request.go

+// #2: Are able to match bidderName and dealID field is WildCard
+// #3: Bidder field is WildCard and are able to match DealID
+// #4: Wildcard bidder and wildcard dealID
+func getAdjustmentArrayForMediaType(bidAdjMap map[string]map[string][]Adjustments, bidderName string, dealID string) []Adjustments {


This function looks good. However, I think we might have to make a modification to this and/or the calling function GetAdjustmentArray to satisfy the requirements.

From the requirements: "If multiple adjustment arrays match, choose the one that has the least number of wildcards in the path". In other words, choose the rule that is the most specific.
In that case, a rule of *, bidderA, dealID1 would win over banner, *, *.

There's also a scenario where multiple rules match and have the same level of specificity. In that case, I'd also probably include logic similar to what we have in floors where if two rules have the same amount of specificity, the rule that has the most specific left-most value wins.
In that case, banner, *, dealID1 would win over *, bidderA, dealID1.

openrtb_ext/request.go

bsardo · 2023-04-19T16:58:41Z

exchange/exchange.go

@@ -290,6 +290,11 @@ func (e *exchange) HoldAuction(ctx context.Context, r AuctionRequest, debugLog *
 		r.FirstPartyData = resolvedFPD
 	}

+	mergedBidAdj, err := processBidAdjustments(r.BidRequestWrapper, r.Account.BidAdjustments)


If bid adjustments aren't successfully merged we will get an error and we'll halt processing right? In this scenario, the problem must have existed in the account config because the request config already passed validation. If the account config was malformed, we would have already halted processing when it was fetched. In that case, an error could only happen here if we have a code problem right?

Alex and I chatted offline. No action is required here. Yes we will halt processing if the merge fails but this technically should never happen.

SyntaxNode

Looks great. I have nitpicks, but nothing major.

bidadjustments/bidadjustments.go

SyntaxNode · 2023-04-24T15:50:23Z

bidadjustments/bidadjustments.go

+func applyAdjustmentArray(adjArray []openrtb_ext.Adjustments, bidPrice float64, currency string, reqInfo *adapters.ExtraRequestInfo) (float64, string) {
+	if adjArray == nil {
+		return bidPrice, currency
+	}


A nil array is treated different from an empty array. Is this behavior intentional?

I just want to check that if there are no adjustments to apply, to return the original bid price and currency. So i can add a length check here as well I think.

SyntaxNode · 2023-04-24T16:00:25Z

bidadjustments/validate.go

+		if adjustment.Value >= 0 && adjustment.Value < 100 {
+			return true
+		}
+		adjustment.Currency = ""


Why is the currency set to empty after the validation?

I initially did this because of the line from the issue that says during validation, if adjtype is "multiplier", ignore currency.

But reading this again, ignoring currency is accomplished with how the apply()method works, where if the adjtype is multiplier, I don't utilize currency at all in the bid price calculation.

So i think this line could be removed

endpoints/openrtb2/sample-requests/valid-whole/exemplary/bidadjustments-cpm.json

SyntaxNode · 2023-04-24T16:02:44Z

openrtb_ext/request.go

+// Overall: BidderName maps to a DealID that maps to an Adjustments Array
+type MediaType struct {
+	Banner   map[string]map[string][]Adjustments `json:"banner,omitempty"`
+	Video    map[string]map[string][]Adjustments `json:"video,omitempty"`


It's hard to understand map[string]map[string][]Adjustments and the comment is evidence of it. Could you use type aliases? Such as...

type AdjusmentsByDealID map[string][]Adjustments map[BidderName]AdjusmentsByDealID

openrtb_ext/request.go

bsardo · 2023-04-25T15:12:12Z

openrtb_ext/request.go

+// BidderName maps to a DealID that maps to the Adjustments
+type MediaType struct {
+	Banner   map[BidderName]AdjusmentsByDealID `json:"banner,omitempty"`
+	Video    map[BidderName]AdjusmentsByDealID `json:"video,omitempty"`


It appears we will be moving from video to video-instream and video-outstream for the bid adjustment rules so we should support both of those here instead of video. I need to investigate this further before we make changes.

bidadjustment/validate.go

bidadjustment/validate_test.go

bidadjustment/validate.go

bidadjustment/validate_test.go

bidadjustment/bidadjustment.go

bsardo · 2023-04-26T18:12:42Z

bidadjustment/bidadjustment.go

+	return reqAdjMap
+}
+
+func PopulateMap(bidAdjustments *openrtb_ext.ExtRequestPrebidBidAdjustments, ruleToAdjustments map[string][]openrtb_ext.Adjustment) {


Thoughts on changing this signature so ruleToAdjustments is returned instead of passed in? We're just passing in an empty map so I suggest generating that here and returning it.
Also maybe call this something like BuildRules instead?

bidadjustment/bidadjustment.go

exchange/exchange.go

bidadjustment/get.go

bsardo · 2023-04-26T18:43:32Z

bidadjustment/get.go

+func GetAndApplyAdjustments(ruleToAdjustments map[string][]openrtb_ext.Adjustment, bidInfo *adapters.TypedBid, bidderName openrtb_ext.BidderName, currency string, reqInfo *adapters.ExtraRequestInfo) (float64, string) {
+	adjustments := []openrtb_ext.Adjustment{}
+	if ruleToAdjustments != nil {
+		adjustments = get(ruleToAdjustments, string(bidInfo.BidType), string(bidderName), bidInfo.Bid.DealID)


TODO: I think we should come up with names for the two types of rules: rules and ruleKeys? providerRules and adContextRules? Not sure what to use...

endpoints/openrtb2/sample-requests/valid-whole/exemplary/bidadjustments-cpm.json

bsardo

Looks really good. Mostly nitpicky comments.

Also can you add doc comments to all public functions at a minimum and use your own discretion on whether to add comments for private functions?

bsardo · 2023-04-27T15:31:13Z

bidadjustment/build_rules.go

+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, err
+	}
+	if !Validate(mergedBidAdj) {


We should probably return a warning here as well if this validation fails.

Discussed offline. We will stick with a warning but will need to adjust the warning message to indicate the issue is in the account instead of the request. We'll also need to append the error to the errors slice if the error returned by Merge is non-fatal.

exchange/bidder.go

openrtb_ext/request.go

bsardo · 2023-05-02T14:22:36Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

@@ -1554,6 +1555,15 @@ func validateRequestExt(req *openrtb_ext.RequestWrapper) []error {
 		reqExt.SetPrebid(prebid)
 	}

+	if !bidadjustment.Validate(prebid.BidAdjustments) {
+		prebid.BidAdjustments = nil
+		reqExt.SetPrebid(prebid)


Double check that we don't need to call RebuildRequest after setting prebid on the wrapper.

No action required here. We shouldn't need to call RebuildRequest at this point. The call to SetPrebid is modifying the request ext object on the wrapper and marking it as dirty which is sufficient. The code that follows operates off of the request ext object and does not need access to a marshaled ext. In HoldAuction, we rebuild the request prior to cleaning and splitting the request by bidder to ensure that each bidder uses a copy of the mutated request including any modifications made to the request ext through calls to methods like SetPrebid.

bidadjustment/validate.go

bsardo · 2023-05-02T16:19:27Z

bidadjustment/apply.go

+	if roundedBidPrice <= 0 {
+		return originalBidPrice, originalCurrency
+	}


Just curious, It might make sense to have this logic but where did it come from? I don't see it in the requirements.

It came as a response to this comment #2678 (comment)

Apparently a zero bid is considered valid for deals only, which makes me wonder if we should add the following at the end of Apply and remove this conditional here:

minBid := 0.1?? adjustedPrice, adjustedCurrency := apply(adjustments, bidInfo.Bid.Price, currency, reqInfo) if bidInfo.Bid.DealID != "" && adjustedPrice < 0 { return 0, currency } if bidInfo.Bid.DealID == "" && adjustedPrice <= 0 { return minBid, currency } return adjustedPrice, adjustedCurrency

endpoints/openrtb2/sample-requests/valid-whole/exemplary/bidadjustments-simple.json

bidadjustment/build_rules_test.go

bidadjustment/apply_test.go

exchange/bidder.go

bsardo · 2023-05-03T16:54:21Z

bidadjustment/apply.go

+	if roundedBidPrice <= 0 {
+		return originalBidPrice, originalCurrency
+	}


Apparently a zero bid is considered valid for deals only, which makes me wonder if we should add the following at the end of Apply and remove this conditional here:

minBid := 0.1?? adjustedPrice, adjustedCurrency := apply(adjustments, bidInfo.Bid.Price, currency, reqInfo) if bidInfo.Bid.DealID != "" && adjustedPrice < 0 { return 0, currency } if bidInfo.Bid.DealID == "" && adjustedPrice <= 0 { return minBid, currency } return adjustedPrice, adjustedCurrency

bsardo · 2023-05-03T17:42:06Z

bidadjustment/build_rules.go

+	if err != nil {
+		return nil, err
+	}
+	if !Validate(mergedBidAdj) {


Discussed offline. We will stick with a warning but will need to adjust the warning message to indicate the issue is in the account instead of the request. We'll also need to append the error to the errors slice if the error returned by Merge is non-fatal.

VeronikaSolovei9

LGTM, great work!

bsardo · 2023-05-04T11:34:03Z

config/accounts.go

-	EventsEnabled           *bool                                `mapstructure:"events_enabled" json:"events_enabled"` // Deprecated: Use events.enabled instead.
-	CCPA                    AccountCCPA                          `mapstructure:"ccpa" json:"ccpa"`
-	GDPR                    AccountGDPR                          `mapstructure:"gdpr" json:"gdpr"`
-	DebugAllow              bool                                 `mapstructure:"debug_allow" json:"debug_allow"`
-	DefaultIntegration      string                               `mapstructure:"default_integration" json:"default_integration"`
-	CookieSync              CookieSync                           `mapstructure:"cookie_sync" json:"cookie_sync"`
-	Events                  Events                               `mapstructure:"events" json:"events"` // Don't enable this feature. It is still under developmment - https://github.com/prebid/prebid-server/issues/1725
-	TruncateTargetAttribute *int                                 `mapstructure:"truncate_target_attr" json:"truncate_target_attr"`
-	AlternateBidderCodes    *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes `mapstructure:"alternatebiddercodes" json:"alternatebiddercodes"`
-	Hooks                   AccountHooks                         `mapstructure:"hooks" json:"hooks"`
-	PriceFloors             AccountPriceFloors                   `mapstructure:"price_floors" json:"price_floors"`
-	Validations             Validations                          `mapstructure:"validations" json:"validations"`
-	DefaultBidLimit         int                                  `mapstructure:"default_bid_limit" json:"default_bid_limit"`
+	ID                      string                                      `mapstructure:"id" json:"id"`
+	Disabled                bool                                        `mapstructure:"disabled" json:"disabled"`
+	CacheTTL                DefaultTTLs                                 `mapstructure:"cache_ttl" json:"cache_ttl"`
+	EventsEnabled           *bool                                       `mapstructure:"events_enabled" json:"events_enabled"`


Can you put the // Deprecated: Use events.enabled instead. comment back on the EventsEnabled line as it is currently on master? I think this got lost during your most recent merge with master.

bsardo · 2023-05-04T12:02:21Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

@@ -1554,6 +1555,15 @@ func validateRequestExt(req *openrtb_ext.RequestWrapper) []error {
 		reqExt.SetPrebid(prebid)
 	}

+	if !bidadjustment.Validate(prebid.BidAdjustments) {
+		prebid.BidAdjustments = nil
+		reqExt.SetPrebid(prebid)


No action required here. We shouldn't need to call RebuildRequest at this point. The call to SetPrebid is modifying the request ext object on the wrapper and marking it as dirty which is sufficient. The code that follows operates off of the request ext object and does not need access to a marshaled ext. In HoldAuction, we rebuild the request prior to cleaning and splitting the request by bidder to ensure that each bidder uses a copy of the mutated request including any modifications made to the request ext through calls to methods like SetPrebid.

bsardo · 2023-05-04T12:20:26Z

bidadjustment/build_rules.go

+	extPrebid.BidAdjustments.MediaType.VideoOutstream = mergeForMediaType(extPrebid.BidAdjustments.MediaType.VideoOutstream, acct.MediaType.VideoOutstream)
+	extPrebid.BidAdjustments.MediaType.WildCard = mergeForMediaType(extPrebid.BidAdjustments.MediaType.WildCard, acct.MediaType.WildCard)
+
+	return extPrebid.BidAdjustments, nil


No action required here; I think this is ok. SetPrebid is creating a copy of the the request.ext.prebid object which is then modified here and returned where it is passed downstream and utilized when processing the bid responses. I don't believe there is any value in modifying the request unless our intention is to make the information visible to the publisher as part of the resolved request, but even so, that would be a deviation from our current approach and is something we should address holistically in a separate PR.

bsardo · 2023-05-04T12:25:20Z

exchange/exchange.go

+	if err != nil {
+		if !errortypes.ContainsFatalError([]error{err}) {
+			errs = append(errs, err)
+		} else {
+			return nil, err
+		}
+	}


Supernitpick driven by go docs (https://go.dev/doc/effective_go): "In the Go libraries, you'll find that when an if statement doesn't flow into the next statement—that is, the body ends in break, continue, goto, or return—the unnecessary else is omitted."

You can rewrite this to eliminate the else by instead checking if it contains a fatal error and early returning.

VeronikaSolovei9

LGTM!

AlexBVolcy added 5 commits March 28, 2023 17:59

Initial major implementation, no tests

1635031

Move/add merge/validation to HoldAuction

b942b42

Bid Adj Testing

1302f86

Merge branch 'master' into upgrade_bid_adjustments

0449d99

Remove unused value from merge

14c79ec

bsardo self-assigned this Apr 3, 2023

AlexBVolcy added 3 commits April 3, 2023 16:51

Merge branch 'master' into upgrade_bid_adjustments

eff488a

Fix failed tests post merge

d055f96

Better function names

4ff5ede

bsardo assigned VeronikaSolovei9 Apr 6, 2023

SyntaxNode added the do not port label Apr 10, 2023

VeronikaSolovei9 reviewed Apr 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

AlexBVolcy added 2 commits April 11, 2023 15:44

Address feedback

9b2e525

Tweak to validation

fb2ab84

VeronikaSolovei9 reviewed Apr 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

Combine adjustment functions, round bid price

4659a9a

Moved exchange adjustment functions/tests

0c688fd

VeronikaSolovei9 reviewed Apr 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

AlexBVolcy added 2 commits April 18, 2023 10:38

Merge branch 'master' into upgrade_bid_adjustments

5306357

Address module error

05a132f

bsardo reviewed Apr 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

AlexBVolcy added 3 commits April 19, 2023 17:22

Address half of feedback, remove ptrs,update tests

3d4a341

Updates to adj array apply

fdf5edc

Move bid adjustment logic to own package

b756794

Big changes to GetAdjustmentArray, minor to merge

7d6b4fc

SyntaxNode reviewed Apr 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

AlexBVolcy added 3 commits April 24, 2023 11:19

Merge branch 'master' into upgrade_bid_adjustments

1a99400

Address variety of feedback

6e17639

Update to not return map unnecessarily

816d3e2

bsardo reviewed Apr 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

Add more test cases for validation

a4fcab8

bsardo reviewed Apr 26, 2023

View reviewed changes

AlexBVolcy added 2 commits April 26, 2023 15:03

Renaming, updating bidadjustment package files

20cd02a

Add nil checks to validation, update tests, rename

7b8b5cb

VeronikaSolovei9 reviewed Apr 27, 2023

View reviewed changes

endpoints/openrtb2/sample-requests/valid-whole/exemplary/bidadjustments-cpm.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Video instream/outstream support

3ee1931

bsardo reviewed May 2, 2023

View reviewed changes

Address all feedback

9708f82

bsardo reviewed May 3, 2023

View reviewed changes

AlexBVolcy added 5 commits May 3, 2023 11:29

Merge branch 'master' into upgrade_bid_adjustments

db1df54

Fix error after merge

39cfec9

Address error handling, edge cases

8c1e089

Add invalid end to end test

1ce1b43

Fatal error tweak

77b4dd0

VeronikaSolovei9 previously approved these changes May 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

bsardo reviewed May 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

Re-add comment, tweak error handling

4c55dea

AlexBVolcy dismissed VeronikaSolovei9’s stale review via 4c55dea May 4, 2023 17:51

bsardo approved these changes May 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

VeronikaSolovei9 approved these changes May 4, 2023

View reviewed changes

bsardo merged commit e05d429 into prebid:master May 4, 2023

gargcreation1992 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 16, 2023

Upgrade Bid Adjustments (#2678)

752daef

AlexBVolcy mentioned this pull request May 22, 2023

Upgrade bid adjustments feature #2085

Closed

blueseasx pushed a commit to blueseasx/prebid-server that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2023

Upgrade Bid Adjustments (prebid#2678)

b143eea

Upgrade Bid Adjustments #2678

Upgrade Bid Adjustments #2678

Conversation

AlexBVolcy commented Apr 3, 2023 • edited Loading

VeronikaSolovei9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexBVolcy Apr 12, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

VeronikaSolovei9 left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

VeronikaSolovei9 Apr 13, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

VeronikaSolovei9 commented Apr 15, 2023

VeronikaSolovei9 commented Apr 15, 2023

AlexBVolcy commented Apr 17, 2023

AlexBVolcy commented Apr 17, 2023 • edited Loading

VeronikaSolovei9 commented Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

VeronikaSolovei9 commented Apr 18, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SyntaxNode left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bsardo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bsardo May 2, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

VeronikaSolovei9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

VeronikaSolovei9 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AlexBVolcy commented Apr 3, 2023 •

edited

Loading

AlexBVolcy Apr 12, 2023 •

edited

Loading

VeronikaSolovei9 left a comment •

edited

Loading

VeronikaSolovei9 Apr 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

AlexBVolcy commented Apr 17, 2023 •

edited

Loading

bsardo May 2, 2023 •

edited

Loading