-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 765
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
Adding support for aliases #296
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
18 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
748d752
Added alias support to the request validation and bid preprocessing. …
dbemiller f0bb443
Fixed some lint errors.
dbemiller e038951
Added aliases as a return value from cleanOpenRTBRequests.
dbemiller 4671d5f
Merged from master. Fixed conflicts.
dbemiller 81616eb
Added alias support to the core auction logic.
dbemiller f582504
Merged from master, and fixed conflicts.
dbemiller 2c19233
Fixed a bug with the timeout computation.
dbemiller c108f80
Merged in the auction timeout bugfix.
dbemiller 82d9ff3
Made sure that the core biddername gets used for operational metrics.
dbemiller ac43b95
Merged from master. Fixed conflicts.
dbemiller 8afd7b4
Fixed a unit test which was broken after the changes.
dbemiller 062b850
Cleaner, simpler parse/validate method.
dbemiller ba0c513
Added some tests, and fixed some bugs.
dbemiller 15f8ea7
Added one more use case, and tightened the input validation a bit.
dbemiller b276e7c
Updated the endpoint docs.
dbemiller 2c65db8
Better alias docs. Fixed the header mismatches.
dbemiller f3160e1
Merged from master. Fixed conflicts.
dbemiller 1baefcf
Merged from master. Fixed conflicts.
dbemiller File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Should this necessarily return an error?
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.
definitely debatable... I'm not 100% sure.
My thoughts were: "If they sent this, we would ignore it. If we ignore it, then they'll get better performance (smaller I/O) if they don't send it. Let's encourage that."
I sorta doubt anyone will care either way, though.
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.
It is debatable. I was thinking there is one case that we would probably want to return an error, but this wouldn't catch it. Do we want to flag when someone aliases one core bidder to another? Like appnexus=rubicon? I don't really see a use case to do this, and if someone does it is quite likely that it will just cause confusion. Perhaps we want to check for this case as well?
We could use a method to pass back warnings, so we can flag curious things like this without invalidation the entire bid request for the bidder. Developers could then see the message when they are trying to debug why the auction isn't happening as they expected. But that is probably out of scope for this PR.
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, the
appnexus=rubicon
one is a good case. I definitely did consider making that an error... but that would actually make every new Bidder a breaking change. Today, publishers could aliasfoo=appnexus
, and tomorrow, someone could submit a new Bidder with the namefoo
. It's very unlikely, but.... if this is an error, then that's technically a breaking change.So... instead I made
appnexus=rubicon
legal, and defined the API so that aliases take precedence over "core" bidders. There's a section about it in the aliases docs... but maybe it's worth highlighting? With a "NOTE" or "WARNING" or something like that.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've been toying with the idea of "warn, but execute the auction anyway" too... but I lean moderately against it.
Devs are more likely to miss or ignore 2xx responses with an error message stuffed into them than they are 4xx's. If the error message is good, it takes like 30 seconds to fix.
In some cases it's obvious what the user "meant" and we can run an appropriate auction, but in other cases it's not. It's like a deer in a thicket; you can walk in easily, but you're likely to get your antlers tangled, and then it'll be impossible to escape. And if they miss the warnings, and the auction doesn't behave exactly like they expect, they'll log issues about it... which we'll then have to debug.
I'd just rather not go down that road.