IX Bid Adapter: First Party Data Support#6784
IX Bid Adapter: First Party Data Support#6784umakajan wants to merge 5 commits intoprebid:masterfrom
Conversation
umakajan
force-pushed
the
IX_first-party-data
branch
from
501da5d to
c752376
Compare
ChrisHuie
requested review from
robertrmartinez
and removed request for
ChrisHuie and
robertrmartinez
|
Docs PR: prebid/prebid.github.io#2971 |
|
Hey @gwhigs is there anything else you need from us to aide in review of this PR? |
|
Hi @umakajan, I've done an initial read-through and saw no issues. As this is my first review here, I appreciate your patience as I read through related documentation before submitting. I anticipate submitting my review early next week. |
|
Awesome thanks @gwhigs, no worries, just wanted to confirm PR was ready for review. Appreciate you getting back to us! |
modules/ixBidAdapter.js
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure how this is used, but parsing may fail for referrer values with existing QSP.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r.site.page may also be undefined here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@umakajan just to clarify my first comment — the existing logic assumes no QSP are present in the referrer value and always appends firstPartyString with ? (see L478).
For referrer values with existing QSP this will result in a URL with multiple ?, which may fail to parse.
|
docs PR prebid/prebid.github.io#2971 |
umakajan
force-pushed
the
IX_first-party-data
branch
from
7024c8f to
9acd28f
Compare
|
Can you confirm this is intentionally still in draft @ix-prebid-development |
|
@patmmccann Yes, it is intentionally marked as draft, we are waiting to confirm with our beta publisher on this. |
|
Docs PR: |
umakajan
force-pushed
the
IX_first-party-data
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1c67a95 to
6a3ef77
Compare
umakajan
force-pushed
the
IX_first-party-data
branch
from
2eeeae8 to
6a3ef77
Compare
umakajan
force-pushed
the
IX_first-party-data
branch
from
6a3ef77 to
11edb20
Compare
|
Hi @umakajan, we were excited about this PR; can you share your reasons for closing it? |
|
Hi @patmmccann, there are some additional changes we need to make which we discovered from a recent round of testing. The plan was to reopen this when it was ready for review, rather than keeping it in draft. Would you prefer if we kept it open as draft instead? |
|
that's up to you, we have just been keeping an eye on this bc of the close partnership between our companies. Thanks for the detail. |
7 participants
Type of change
Description of change
In this PR, we are updating our bidder to read first party data from the standard Prebid locations
A link to a PR on the docs repo at prebid/prebid.github.io#2971