-
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
Prebid Core: Implement transaction id on imp.ext.tid #8591
Conversation
@@ -616,6 +616,27 @@ export const startAuction = hook('async', function ({ bidsBackHandler, timeout: | |||
|
|||
adUnit.transactionId = generateUUID(); | |||
|
|||
// Populate ortb2Imp.ext.tid with transactionId. Specifying a transaction ID per item in the ortb impression array, lets multiple transaction IDs be transmitted in a single bid request. |
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.
I think this whole block could be replaced by
deepSetValue(adUnit, 'ortb2Imp.ext.tid', adUnit.transactionId)
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.
Nice! Addressed.
@@ -2200,7 +2200,7 @@ describe('IndexexchangeAdapter', function () { | |||
expect(diagObj.mfu).to.equal(2); | |||
expect(diagObj.allu).to.equal(2); | |||
expect(diagObj.version).to.equal('$prebid.version$'); | |||
expect(diagObj.url).to.equal('http://localhost:9876/context.html') | |||
expect(diagObj.url).to.exist |
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.
not sure if I'm OK with this - it should be changed to expect the current port. I believe it's also not the only test that fails when the port chages. In this context I think it'd be better to revert it, and deal with the annoyance of killing stray karma processes until we fix all the tests.
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.
Yeah this was to avoid failure in the test pipeline when the port is already being used and it gets incremented to 9877.
* add transactionId to openrtb imp ext object * fix unit test * address feedbacks Co-authored-by: shahin.rahbariasl <[email protected]>
* add transactionId to openrtb imp ext object * fix unit test * address feedbacks Co-authored-by: shahin.rahbariasl <[email protected]>
* add transactionId to openrtb imp ext object * fix unit test * address feedbacks Co-authored-by: shahin.rahbariasl <[email protected]>
* add transactionId to openrtb imp ext object * fix unit test * address feedbacks Co-authored-by: shahin.rahbariasl <[email protected]>
Type of change
Description of change
Addresses #8543 (add imp[].ext.tid to openrtb2Imp object).
Tested locally and added unit tests.
Other information
https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/openrtb/blob/master/extensions/community_extensions/per-imp-tids.md