-
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
Validate native inputs #353
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
16 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6b39d35
Upgraded the openrtb library to 9.2.0.
dbemiller 491c0cf
Moved invalid request payloads into their own directory.
dbemiller 612ba9a
Added a bad native request.
dbemiller c891fd3
Added lots of invalid native bid payloads, to make tests fail.
dbemiller bc730a5
Moved some files around. Implemented all the logic to make the tests …
dbemiller 49de5fe
Moved valid requests into directories.
dbemiller 71978e3
Deleted some duplicate files. Added some new ones to beef up code cov…
dbemiller 52fa7a9
Removed some unnecessary code.
dbemiller bf766b8
Added an issue number to the TODO statement.
dbemiller fee8685
Fixed the range on data asset types.
dbemiller 27741b5
Fixed the amp auction tests, which were buggy before.
dbemiller 0bc34ca
Merged from master. Resolved conflicts.
dbemiller f7b00a4
Moved tests from other PR into their own .json files.
dbemiller d7e8b40
Merged from master. Fixed conflicts.
dbemiller 47c17cd
Merged from master. Fixed conflict, and added test cases for GDPR stuff.
dbemiller 7adff99
Deleted duplicate directory... not sure how that got added.
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
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.
From the spec: "Typically a counter for the array." This enforces that it will be a counter. I don't know of any use cases for ID being anything else, so its probably good. But potentially will break something that stretches the spec here.
Oh, I see below that we are changing the spec that we don't want anyone else filling asset IDs. So any breaking changes should not be a surprise, but still could potentially block some funky implementation.
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... to be honest I'm not 100% sure how to handle this. I saw the following:
Since Prebid is the exchange, in this context, I don't think we're breaking the spec here. We just decided that the "typical" implementation is the one we'll be using.
I decided to return 4xx on IDs sent by the Publisher just to prevent all sorts of nasty logic/confusion. As a general rule, we never overwrite anything which the Publisher gives us. So if we allowed IDs, then we'd have to make sure that the ones we added weren't duplicates, which gets... messy.
Decided to just reject those requests to keep things simple.
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 am fine with that then.