-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 749
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
New Adapter: Brave #2396
New Adapter: Brave #2396
Conversation
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.
LGTM!
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ | |||
|
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.
Super nitpick: please remove empty lines from json files where they are present.
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 added some minor comments.
Other than that code looks good, local testing looks good as well.
I'll re-approve it again after you make changes :)
docs PR prebid/prebid.github.io#4039 |
There is a PR #2370 that is being merged today that will cause conflicts to new adapter PRs. To resolve these conflicts, you'll need to do the following: In In After the merge, you can look at other adapters to see how the server object is implemented as an example. |
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 test coverage. Left a few comments about multi impression support and bid type detection.
} else if imp.Native != nil { | ||
mediaType = openrtb_ext.BidTypeNative | ||
} | ||
return mediaType |
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.
Although many adapters do this, we consider it an anti-pattern. Does your bidding server return the media type in the response? Such as the new OpenRTB 2.6 mtype
field?
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.
no, we using 2.5 and response with adm without mtype, that's why we have to recognise type by using req parameter
adapters/brave/brave_test.go
Outdated
|
||
func TestJsonSamples(t *testing.T) { | ||
bidder, buildErr := Builder(openrtb_ext.BidderBrave, config.Adapter{ | ||
Endpoint: "http://point.braveglobal.tv/?t=3&partner={{.PublisherID}}"}) |
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.
Please consider using an obviously fake url for testing. There is no need for this to match the real endpoint and might be harder to maintain if you need to change it in the future.
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.
oh ok, got it , thanks
This code is identical to #2399. If these are aliases of the same underlying bidder, it's better to implement it just once and use an alias. Less code to maintain. |
Hi @thebraveio, just checking in to see if you can shed some light on this. Thanks! |
Added commit with fixes |
Hi @thebraveio, can you merge with master when you get a chance? Your code is failing the go 1.19 validation checks due to Also your code is failing the |
updated, check it again pls |
@thebraveio you still have errors to fix. The tests aren't passing because you have references to video heroes data structures in this PR. |
yes, my mistake, sorry |
hi Guys, could you review the pull ? it just on pending for review |
go.sum
Outdated
@@ -29,12 +29,18 @@ cloud.google.com/go v0.94.1/go.mod h1:qAlAugsXlC+JWO+Bke5vCtc9ONxjQT3drlTTnAplMW | |||
cloud.google.com/go v0.97.0/go.mod h1:GF7l59pYBVlXQIBLx3a761cZ41F9bBH3JUlihCt2Udc= | |||
cloud.google.com/go v0.98.0/go.mod h1:ua6Ush4NALrHk5QXDWnjvZHN93OuF0HfuEPq9I1X0cM= | |||
cloud.google.com/go v0.99.0/go.mod h1:w0Xx2nLzqWJPuozYQX+hFfCSI8WioryfRDzkoI/Y2ZA= | |||
cloud.google.com/go v0.100.2/go.mod h1:4Xra9TjzAeYHrl5+oeLlzbM2k3mjVhZh4UqTZ//w99A= |
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.
Please do not push changes in go.sum if you didn't modify go.mod. This should not be a part of this PR, there are no new libraries added
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.
UPD: discussed it with the team, it's ok to have changes in go.sum, no actions needed
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.
LGTM
Hi @thebraveio, would you mind rolling back the changes you made to go.sum? |
Hi @thebraveio, just checking in to see if you saw my earlier request to roll back changes to go.sum. No rush 🙂 |
c3c9d13
sorry for a delay, I checkout file to version was pulled before push |
@videoheroes, @thebraveio, no worries. It looks like you have two more lines in |
yes, seems like I need to update go.* to #2356 |
Hi Guys ! I see we do not pass security auto test, do you know where it comes from, as we do not touch any core code it can be versions problem again ? |
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.
LGTM! Discussed with the team today, you don't have to worry about the Trivy security failure, as we can still approve and merge in a PR if that's the only thing wrong with it.
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.
LGTM
No description provided.