Add alternatebiddercodes in Prebid request ext #2339

pm-nilesh-chate · 2022-08-04T04:20:30Z

This changes would make alternatebiddercodes from PBS config formally part of Prebid ORTB extensions.

Incoming ORTB would contain:

ext.prebid.alternatebiddercodes.enabled: true/false
ext.prebid.alternatebiddercodes.bidders.BIDDER.enabled: true/false
ext.prebid.alternatebiddercodes.bidders.BIDDER.allowedbiddercodes: [array, of, strings]

This would override the account-level config
If the request doesn't specify these values, then PBS-core would merge the account config into these values
Before sending to each adapter, PBS-core would need to remove entries that don't belong to that bidder. i.e. they would only receive ext.prebid.alternatebiddercodes.adapters.ME
Everything else is up to the adapter. They can ignore or use at will.

Ex. s2s config on page and incoming PBS request

pbjs.setConfig({
    s2sConfig: {
        extPrebid: {
            "alternatebiddercodes": {
                "enabled": true,
                "bidders": {
                    "pubmatic": {
                        "enabled": true,
                        "allowedbiddercodes": [
                            "groupm"
                        ]
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
});

{
   ...
   "ext": {
       "prebid": {
           "alternatebiddercodes": {
                "enabled": true,
                "bidders": {
                    "pubmatic": {
                        "enabled": true,
                        "allowedbiddercodes": [
                            "groupm"
                        ]
                    }
                }
            }
       }
   }
}

More details at #2174

pm-nilesh-chate · 2022-08-10T04:41:34Z

exchange/utils.go

+	extCopy.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes = nil
+
+	//fill request.ext.prebid.alternatebiddercode to have data only of the current bidder
+	if unpackedExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes != nil && len(unpackedExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes.Bidders) != 0 {


Do we want to pass openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes{Enabled: true/false} to the bidders that are not present in the list req.ext?.

i.e.

if unpackedExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes != nil && len(unpackedExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes.Bidders) != 0 { extCopy.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes = &openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes{ Enabled: unpackedExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes.Enabled, } if bidderCodes, ok := unpackedExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes.Bidders[bidder]; ok { extCopy.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes.Bidders = map[string]openrtb_ext.ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes{ bidder: bidderCodes, } } }

Current changes do not pass it as I don't find any use case for the same.

VeronikaSolovei9 · 2022-08-11T04:50:10Z

Code looks good, local testing looks good too.

bsardo · 2022-08-16T15:09:50Z

config/accounts.go

+	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    *AlternateBidderCodes `mapstructure:"alternatebiddercodes" json:"alternatebiddercodes"`


Why are we changing this to a pointer? I thought we wanted an empty object if alternatebiddercodes didn't exist in the fetched account so that Enabled is set to its default value of false which would make this an opt-in feature. Do we need to detect presence when determining whether to use the account config values?

Reverted the change. Yes, I did it to detect the presence of account config values but I guess we don't need it.

btw, we would need the AlternateBidderCodes in the request.ext to be pointer to detect its presence and to choose between request and account values.

exchange/utils.go

bsardo · 2022-08-18T15:07:51Z

exchange/exchange.go

@@ -245,6 +245,8 @@ func (e *exchange) HoldAuction(ctx context.Context, r AuctionRequest, debugLog *
 		}
 	}

+	setExtAlternateBidderCodes(requestExt, r.Account.AlternateBidderCodes)


This function appears to merge the alternate bidder codes account config with the request resulting in a modified request ext which seems a little odd to me. Perhaps it would be better if this function created a new instance of AlternateBidderCodes so requestExt is left unmodified. I'm not seeing the value in modifying it and I think this can lead to confusion.

I do see that you're making use of the alternate bidder codes set on the requestExt in CleanOpenRTBRequests and that function has a lot of parameters but I suggest you add another parameter there to pass this new AlternateBidderCodes object in and we can worry about getting the number of parameters down in a future refactor.

sure, moved setExtAlternateBidderCodes's code into CleanOpenRTBRequests's buildRequestExtForBidder.

It looks messy now, too many scenarios, although tried to cover all them in unit tests.

bsardo · 2022-08-18T15:09:44Z

exchange/utils.go

+
+// getExtAlternateBidderCodes map config.account.alternatebiddercodes to ext.prebid.alternatebiddercodes
+func setExtAlternateBidderCodes(requestExt *openrtb_ext.ExtRequest, cfgABC *config.AlternateBidderCodes) {
+	if requestExt == nil || requestExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes != nil {


If requestExt is nil, shouldn't we still consider any alternate bidder codes defined in the account config?

missed this one. Updated the code in buildRequestExtForBidder and added unit test for the same.

exchange/exchange.go

bsardo · 2022-08-18T16:59:08Z

exchange/exchangetest/extra-bids.json

+          "alternatebiddercodes": {
+            "enabled": true,
+            "bidders": {
+              "pubmatic": {
+                "enabled": true,
+                "allowedbiddercodes": ["groupm"]
+              }
+            }


I'm thinking that maybe we should include an expectRequest object under outgoingRequests for each of the two bidders so we can verify the appropriate alternate bidder code "groupm" was added to the pubmatic bid request but not to the appnexus bid request. Otherwise, this test is just verifying that the alternatebiddercodes object in the original request is well-formed.

Agreed, also I could not test end to end flow at one place where we could validate outgoing and incoming request as these json file based tests mock requestBid function which has alternatebiddercodes validation.

Hence, I wrote TestOverrideConfigAlternateBidderCodesWithRequestValues to cover the validation of alternatebiddercodes coming as response from adapters and added unit tests in all the possible functions that could change request.ext.prebid. alternatebiddercodes to cover the request to adapters part. Ex. setExtAlternateBidderCodes and CleanOpenRTBRequests (now clubbed).

added expectRequest

pm-nilesh-chate · 2022-08-19T11:53:53Z

Hi @bsardo, I've address the comments. Could you review the same.

bsardo · 2022-08-22T14:09:05Z

exchange/utils.go

@@ -48,6 +49,7 @@ func cleanOpenRTBRequests(ctx context.Context,
 	gdprPermsBuilder gdpr.PermissionsBuilder,
 	tcf2ConfigBuilder gdpr.TCF2ConfigBuilder,
 	hostSChainNode *openrtb2.SupplyChainNode,
+	cfgABC config.AlternateBidderCodes,


This is the account config alternate bidder codes right? We could actually remove this parameter here and just grab it off of the parameter auctionReq AuctionRequest which has the account on it. Sorry about that. I didn't realize it was available in this function already until just now.

bsardo · 2022-08-22T14:20:51Z

exchange/utils.go

+			alternateBidderCodes = &openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes{
+				Bidders: map[string]openrtb_ext.ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes{
+					bidder: bidderCodes,
+				},
+			}


I think this should be:

alternateBidderCodes.Bidders = map[string]openrtb_ext.ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes{ bidder: bidderCodes, }

alternateBidderCodes was created just above with Enabled appropriately set.

If you agree, we may need another test case in TestCleanOpenRTBRequestsFilterBidderRequestExt because this wasn't caught.

I think maybe the test case is something like:

{ desc: "Nil request ext, alternatebiddercodes config enabled with bidder code for only one bidder", inExt: nil, inCfgABC: config.AlternateBidderCodes{ Enabled: true, Bidders: map[string]openrtb_ext.ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes{ "pubmatic": { Enabled: true, AllowedBidderCodes: []string{"groupm"}, }, }, }, wantExt: []json.RawMessage{ json.RawMessage(`{"prebid":{"alternatebiddercodes":{"enabled":true,"bidders":null}}}`), json.RawMessage(`{"prebid":{"alternatebiddercodes":{"enabled":true,"bidders":{"pubmatic":{"enabled":true,"allowedbiddercodes":["groupm"]}}}}}`), }, wantError: false, },

done. Added similar test case for buildRequestExtForBidder()

bsardo · 2022-08-22T14:31:55Z

exchange/utils.go

+		// default case where alternatebiddercode is either not defined in account config or defined with default values,
+		// do not fill alternatebiddercode in such scenario to keep the request payload as is (regression)
+		if reflect.DeepEqual(openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes{}, *alternateBidderCodes) {
+			if len(requestExt) == 0 || requestExtParsed == nil {
+				return json.RawMessage(``), nil
+			}
+			alternateBidderCodes = nil
+		}


We generally try to avoid using the reflect package. Is there an alternative?
What if we change this to:

if alternateBidderCodes.Enabled == false && alternateBidderCodes.Bidders == nil { alternateBidderCodes = nil }

bsardo · 2022-08-22T15:34:23Z

exchange/utils.go

-	if len(requestExt) == 0 || requestExtParsed == nil {
-		return json.RawMessage(``), nil
+func buildRequestExtForBidder(bidder string, requestExt json.RawMessage, requestExtParsed *openrtb_ext.ExtRequest, bidderParamsInReqExt map[string]json.RawMessage, cfgABC config.AlternateBidderCodes) (json.RawMessage, error) {
+	// Resolve alternatebiddercode for current bidder


What if we extract the logic you have here that sets alternateBidderCodes into its own function for readability?
The logic here could just be something like:

// Resolve alternatebiddercode for current bidder var reqABC *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes if len(requestExt) != 0 && requestExtParsed != nil && requestExtParsed.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes != nil { reqABC = requestExtParsed.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes } alternateBidderCodes := buildRequestExtAlternateBidderCodes(bidder, cfgABC, reqABC) if (len(requestExt) == 0 || requestExtParsed == nil) && alternateBidderCodes == nil { return json.RawMessage(``), nil }

And then most of this logic is then extracted into a function with a signature like func buildRequestExtAlternateBidderCodes(bidder string, accABC config.AlternateBidderCodes, reqABC *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes) (*openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes) {

Thoughts? You shouldn't need any new unit tests since this new function would just be a private method and you're already adequately testing the caller.

pm-nilesh-chate · 2022-08-22T17:24:44Z

@bsardo I've address the comments. Could you review the same.

Thank you for the critical inputs. A good learning for my future PRs :)

VeronikaSolovei9

Code looks so much better and easier to understand now. LGTM

bsardo · 2022-08-22T19:19:18Z

exchange/utils.go

+		return &openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes{
+			Enabled: reqABC.Enabled,
+			Bidders: map[string]openrtb_ext.ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes{
+				bidder: reqABC.Bidders[bidder],


If the bidder isn't defined in the request config, I think this will create a map with the bidder name as the key and the value as an empty instance of ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes rather than nil. I think we want it to be nil, in which case we would want to check if the key exists before making this assignment just like you do on lines 339-343.

done. Also added a test case for this scenario

bsardo · 2022-09-07T14:29:01Z

exchange/exchange.go

+		//This will be used validate bids
+		alternateBidderCodes := openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes(r.Account.AlternateBidderCodes)
+		if requestExt != nil && requestExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes != nil {
+			alternateBidderCodes = *requestExt.Prebid.AlternateBidderCodes
+		}


It feels like this logic is in an odd place which has me wondering if it is even needed. With the current design where we pass alternateBidderCodes into getAllBids it makes sense. Ideally though I think we should be able use the alternate bidder codes attached to each bidder request when validating the bidders in the bid responses. Thoughts? Perhaps this is something for a future PR?

Added this to make sure PBS-Core data is used to validate the adapter's response instead of relying on the data from adapter's request which could be altered by the adapter code.

bsardo · 2022-09-07T16:47:45Z

exchange/utils_test.go

+				json.RawMessage(`{"prebid":{"alternatebiddercodes":{"enabled":true,"bidders":null}}}`),
+				json.RawMessage(`{"prebid":{"alternatebiddercodes":{"enabled":true,"bidders":null}}}`),


I see a few instances where prebid.alternatebiddercodes.bidders is null. Perhaps this should be omitted if null, in which case we would add the omitempty tag to the ExtAlternateBidderCodes.Bidders field. Thoughts?

Added omit empty to all the alternatebiddercodes fields.

The only downside I see here is that the SSPs would not know whether these fields were omitted by the user or by the PBS. One will have to refer the incoming payload to PBS to verify the same. I don't see any harm though.

pm-nilesh-chate · 2022-09-08T04:16:55Z

Addressed the review comments. Had to rebase and force push to fix the master merge test failures.

@bsardo Could you please review the latest changes.

Thanks

abhinavsinha001 · 2022-09-14T07:15:28Z

What is the holdup here can we get these changes merged?
We want to start using this functionality.

bsardo · 2022-09-14T13:55:43Z

@abhinavsinha001 I'm waiting for a response on this #2174 (comment)

abhinavsinha001 · 2022-09-14T16:29:34Z

Thanks @bsardo for pointing to the comment.
@bretg can you please help unblock here.

bsardo

Thanks for your patience @pm-nilesh-chate. Please see my comments. I ran a bunch of manual tests with my suggested changes to make sure they were in line with my requirements analysis outlined in my comment in exchange/utils.go. Let me know if you want to discuss.

bsardo · 2022-09-26T15:07:55Z

openrtb_ext/alternatebiddercodes.go

+
+type ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes struct {
+	Enabled            bool     `mapstructure:"enabled" json:"enabled"`
+	AllowedBidderCodes []string `mapstructure:"allowedbiddercodes" json:"allowedbiddercodes,omitempty"`


On second thought, I think we should remove this omitempty tag going back to the way you originally had it. By removing it, if allowedbiddercodes is absent for the bidder in the original request, it will be set to null on the bidder request. This outcome will be different from when allowedbiddercodes is set to an empty list on the original request which is good; we need to maintain that distinction because they have different meanings.

done, removed omitempty tag.

bsardo · 2022-09-26T15:10:54Z

openrtb_ext/alternatebiddercodes.go

+// ExtAlternateBidderCodes defines list of alternate bidder codes allowed by adatpers. This overrides host level configs.
+type ExtAlternateBidderCodes struct {
+	Enabled bool                                      `mapstructure:"enabled" json:"enabled"`
+	Bidders map[string]ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes `mapstructure:"bidders" json:"bidders,omitempty"`


I also think we should remove this omitempty tag even though I don't see a behavioral issue similar to that of having omitempty on allowedbiddercodes. Removing this will just make things more consistent.

done, removed omitempty tag.

bsardo · 2022-09-26T16:15:18Z

exchange/utils.go

 	}
 	extMap["prebid"] = prebidJson

 	return json.Marshal(extMap)
 }

+func buildRequestExtAlternateBidderCodes(bidder string, accABC config.AlternateBidderCodes, reqABC *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes) *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes {


After looking more closely at the requirements, I believe we should aim for the following behavior:

If alternatebiddercodes is not defined in the account or on the request, the field should be omitted from all bidder requests.

If alternatebiddercodes is defined either in the account or on the request but its enabled is not set, the alternatebiddercodes field should be added to the bidder request with the default value of false.

The alternatebiddercodes object set on a bidder request should only contain its own bidder object in the bidders field and it should match the bidder object in the account/request it was sourced from. Note an undefined map or slice in the original request or account will appear as null in a bidder request (we will need to get rid of omitempty), so that we can distinguish between an empty array/map and an undefined array/map.

Given the above, I'd like to suggest a couple of things here:

In config/accounts.go, can we make the field AlternateBidderCodes in the Account struct of type *AlternateBidderCodes?

Let's get rid of the if block on line 348 that sets alternateBidderCodes = nil.

I think this function ultimately looks like this:

if reqABC != nil { alternateBidderCodes := &openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes{ Enabled: reqABC.Enabled, } if bidderCodes, ok := reqABC.Bidders[bidder]; ok { alternateBidderCodes.Bidders = map[string]openrtb_ext.ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes{ bidder: bidderCodes, } } return alternateBidderCodes } if accABC != nil { alternateBidderCodes := &openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes{ Enabled: accABC.Enabled, } if bidderCodes, ok := accABC.Bidders[bidder]; ok { alternateBidderCodes.Bidders = map[string]openrtb_ext.ExtAdapterAlternateBidderCodes{ bidder: bidderCodes, } } return alternateBidderCodes } return nil

done. made accABC pointer to detect its presence.

bsardo · 2022-09-26T16:17:09Z

exchange/exchange.go

-		adapterBids, adapterExtra, anyBidsReturned = e.getAllBids(auctionCtx, bidderRequests, bidAdjustmentFactors, conversions, accountDebugAllow, r.GlobalPrivacyControlHeader, debugLog.DebugOverride, r.Account.AlternateBidderCodes, requestExt.Prebid.Experiment)
+
+		//This will be used validate bids
+		alternateBidderCodes := openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes(r.Account.AlternateBidderCodes)


See my related comment in exchange/utils.go that asks for the account field to be converted to a pointer.
Should this be something like this now:

var alternateBidderCodes openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes if r.Account.AlternateBidderCodes != nil { alternateBidderCodes = openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes(*r.Account.AlternateBidderCodes) }

bsardo · 2022-09-26T16:20:04Z

exchange/utils.go

+		}
+	}
+
+	if !alternateBidderCodes.Enabled && alternateBidderCodes.Bidders == nil {


I'm wondering now if we should delete this if block. If we remove it, ext.prebid.alternatebiddercodes in the bidder request will contain exactly what's pertinent to the bidder in the account config with the lone exception being that enabled flags will be set to the default value false if not defined. This is the same behavior as if ext.prebid.alternatebiddercodes were to be populated on the bidder request with information pulled from the original request, assuming we remove the couple of omitempty tags I pointed out in my other comments.

agreed. removed this code.

…174-read-alternatebiddercodes-from-request-ext-3

pm-nilesh-chate · 2022-09-26T18:17:09Z

Hi @bsardo, I've addressed the comments. Please review the same. Fyi, last commit (master merge) is to address Trivy's check.

bsardo

LGTM

SyntaxNode · 2022-09-27T16:02:46Z

config/accounts.go

@@ -18,20 +16,22 @@ const (
 	IntegrationTypeWeb   IntegrationType = "web"
 )

+type AlternateBidderCodes openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes


Nitpick: What is the purpose of this type alias? The two reasons in Go to use a type alias is to provide a more descriptive name or to attach methods. Neither seem to apply. Perhaps it can be removed?

Done.

btw, I did it to keep config's and extension's alternatebiddercodes distinguishable for reading.

Ex:

Original

func buildRequestExtAlternateBidderCodes(bidder string, accABC *config.AlternateBidderCodes, reqABC *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes) *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes {

Current (Both accABC and reqABC have same type now)

func buildRequestExtAlternateBidderCodes(bidder string, accABC *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes, reqABC *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes) *openrtb_ext.ExtAlternateBidderCodes {

SyntaxNode · 2022-09-27T16:04:35Z

openrtb_ext/alternatebiddercodes.go

+
+func (bidderCodes *ExtAlternateBidderCodes) IsValidBidderCode(bidder, alternateBidder string) (bool, error) {
+	const ErrAlternateBidderNotDefined = "alternateBidderCodes not defined for adapter %q, rejecting bids for %q"
+	const ErrAlternateBidderDisabled = "alternateBidderCodes disabled for %q, rejecting bids for %q"


The naming convention errSomeName is usually for when the value is an error type. This is an error message and the separation of the fields from the Errorf calls is a bit hard to follow IMHO. Consider extracting each to their own simple builder method, like:

func alternateBidderNotDefinedError(bidder, alternateBidder string) error { return fmt.Errorf("alternateBidderCodes not defined for adapter %q, rejecting bids for %q", bidder, alternateBidder) }

exchange/exchange.go

VeronikaSolovei9

LGTM

* origin/master: (316 commits) Fix alt bidder code test broken by imp wrapper commit (prebid#2405) ImpWrapper (prebid#2375) Update sspBC adapter to v5.7 (prebid#2394) Change errors to warnings (prebid#2385) TheMediaGrid: support native mediaType (prebid#2377) Huaweiadsadapter gdpr (prebid#2345) Add alternatebiddercodes in Prebid request ext (prebid#2339) Changed FS bidder names to mixed case (prebid#2390) Load bidders names from file system in lowercase (prebid#2388) consumable adapter: add schain and coppa support (prebid#2361) Adapter aliases: moved adapter related configs to bidder.yaml files (prebid#2353) pubmatic adapter: add param prebiddealpriority (prebid#2281) Yieldlab Adapter: Add support for ad unit sizes (prebid#2364) GDPR: add enforce_algo config flag and convert enforce_purpose to bool (prebid#2330) Resolves CVE-2022-27664 (prebid#2376) AMP Endpoint: support parameters consentType and gdprApplies (prebid#2338) Dianomi - added usync for redirect (prebid#2368) Create issue_prioritization.yml (prebid#2372) Update yaml files for gzip supported bidders (prebid#2365) Adnuntius Adapter: Set no cookies as a parameter (prebid#2352) ...

pm-nilesh-chate mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2022

Add alternatebiddercodes in Prebid request extension pm-nilesh-chate/prebid-server#2

Closed

pm-nilesh-chate force-pushed the feature-2174-read-alternatebiddercodes-from-request-ext-3 branch from eac5ba9 to 06ae526 Compare August 10, 2022 04:20

pm-nilesh-chate commented Aug 10, 2022

View reviewed changes

pm-nilesh-chate force-pushed the feature-2174-read-alternatebiddercodes-from-request-ext-3 branch from 06ae526 to 171b9b1 Compare August 10, 2022 15:53

pm-nilesh-chate marked this pull request as ready for review August 10, 2022 16:11

bsardo self-requested a review August 10, 2022 17:31

bsardo self-assigned this Aug 10, 2022

bsardo requested a review from VeronikaSolovei9 August 10, 2022 17:35

bsardo assigned VeronikaSolovei9 Aug 10, 2022

bsardo reviewed Aug 18, 2022

View reviewed changes

bsardo reviewed Aug 22, 2022

View reviewed changes

VeronikaSolovei9 previously approved these changes Sep 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

bsardo reviewed Sep 7, 2022

View reviewed changes

pm-nilesh-chate dismissed VeronikaSolovei9’s stale review via c8d275d September 8, 2022 03:12

pm-nilesh-chate added 8 commits September 8, 2022 03:45

Add alternatebiddercodes in Prebid request ext

5fab8dd

do not convert config.ABC to pointer

fac750b

merge setExtAlternateBidderCodes into buildRequestExtForBidder

f4ea470

expectRequest added for extra bid tests

af169c4

pr review improvements

40988ab

pr review: add bidders to abc config only if bidder is present

e714f4a

add omitempty to alternatebiddercodes

9b17247

git rebase master and test fix

07a3091

pm-nilesh-chate force-pushed the feature-2174-read-alternatebiddercodes-from-request-ext-3 branch from cb28687 to 07a3091 Compare September 8, 2022 03:52

keep omitempty for boo

824e5cf

bsardo reviewed Sep 26, 2022

View reviewed changes

pm-nilesh-chate added 3 commits September 26, 2022 17:52

pr comments: mark acc.abc ptr

76950d5

pr comments: revert omit empty

60efd07

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream-vanilla/master' into feature-2…

241c42c

…174-read-alternatebiddercodes-from-request-ext-3

bsardo previously approved these changes Sep 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

SyntaxNode reviewed Sep 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

fix error naming convension

fdcb6b2

pm-nilesh-chate dismissed bsardo’s stale review via fdcb6b2 September 27, 2022 19:53

remove ABC type alias

95fc384

bsardo reviewed Sep 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

exchange/exchange.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

remove nonessential ABC typecast

dc6dd81

bsardo approved these changes Sep 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

VeronikaSolovei9 approved these changes Sep 29, 2022

View reviewed changes

bsardo merged commit b78eb18 into prebid:master Oct 5, 2022

pm-nilesh-chate deleted the feature-2174-read-alternatebiddercodes-from-request-ext-3 branch October 8, 2022 04:04

shunj-nb pushed a commit to ParticleMedia/prebid-server that referenced this pull request Nov 8, 2022

Add alternatebiddercodes in Prebid request ext (prebid#2339)

9052d42

		json.RawMessage(`{"prebid":{"alternatebiddercodes":{"enabled":true,"bidders":null}}}`),
		json.RawMessage(`{"prebid":{"alternatebiddercodes":{"enabled":true,"bidders":null}}}`),

Add alternatebiddercodes in Prebid request ext #2339

Add alternatebiddercodes in Prebid request ext #2339

Conversation

pm-nilesh-chate commented Aug 4, 2022

pm-nilesh-chate Aug 10, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

VeronikaSolovei9 commented Aug 11, 2022

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

pm-nilesh-chate commented Aug 19, 2022

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

pm-nilesh-chate commented Aug 22, 2022

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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pm-nilesh-chate commented Sep 8, 2022

abhinavsinha001 commented Sep 14, 2022

bsardo commented Sep 14, 2022

abhinavsinha001 commented Sep 14, 2022

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

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

pm-nilesh-chate commented Sep 26, 2022

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

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

pm-nilesh-chate Aug 10, 2022 •

edited

Loading