Remove ambiguity from sizeMappingV2 log messages

[Fawke]

Type of issue

With the merge of this PR, #5062, sizeMappingV2 supports ad unit declarations with the same code. Here's an example of ad unit with same code:

[
  {
    code: 'ad-code-1',
    mediaTypes: {
      banner: {
        sizeConfig: [
          { minViewPort: [0, 0], sizes: [] },
          { minViewPort: [1000, 0], sizes: [[1000, 300], [1000, 90], [970, 250], [970, 90], [728, 90]] },
        ],
      },
    },
    bids: [{
      bidder: 'bidderA',
      params: {
        placementId: 123
      }
    }]
  }, {
    code: 'ad-code-1',
    mediaTypes: {
      banner: {
        sizeConfig: [
          { minViewPort: [0, 0], sizes: [] },
          { minViewPort: [320, 0], sizes: [[320, 100], [320, 50], [300, 50]] },
          { minViewPort: [600, 0], sizes: [] },
        ],
      },
    },
    bids: [{
      bidder: 'bidderA',
      params: {
        placementId: 456
      }
    }]
  },
]

Find more details about this pattern here: #5044, #3226 (comment)

Earlier, log messages in sizeMappingV2 assumed ad unit code to be a unique identifier. But, after introduction of 'identical' ad unit pattern, that's no longer the case. This leads to some degree of ambiguity in log messages. For example, for the above ad unit, and screen size, 1000px, the second ad unit should be disabled.

Here's the generated log messages:

Reading it, it's impossible to figure out which ad unit got disabled, the first one or the second one.

Potential Solution

Add identifier in paranthesis which would be unique. For example, for the above ad units, the first ad unit will read ad-code-1 (1) and second ad unit will read ad-code-1 (2)

If anyone has any better idea, please do share with me.