related PRs
prebid/prebid-server#4428
prebid/prebid.github.io#6140

I know most of '../libraries/vidazooUtils/bidderUtils.js' is covered (https://coveralls.io/builds/74542659/source?filename=libraries%2FvidazooUtils%2FbidderUtils.js) but we do need some tests, at least for the correct bidding and sync endpoints getting called

Why don't you just change the old adapter instead of making a new one

Why don't you just change the old adapter instead of making a new one

It is not our code in the old folder. No idea if it is in use

Ask your client if they want to maintain both simultaneously in the same prebid version

@patmmccann
Unfortunately this is not an option. We were asked by them to create a new one as they still use the old one. I assume they want to gradually sunset it over time.

replacing the one they have does this; as publishers upgrade to 10.x, this will occur over a year or two.

replacing the one they have does this; as publishers upgrade to 10.x, this will occur over a year or two.

Hi @patmmccann . Unfortunately this is outside our domain. We were asked by the customer to not change that so that is a discussion you should have with them. There are already some cos with multiple adapters, so the precedence is there.

We can that discussion with the demand partner offline, but I'd appreciate if you could unblock us in the meanwhile as this won't be something that is solved at a moments notice.

so that is a discussion you should have with them.

well perhaps you could ask them to engage

ok, cleared things up and it was my mistake. It's a different bidder and product under the same entity (a new business line - unrelated to the previous bidder).

We'll update the adapter name to the new product name to reflect this difference. Apologies.

yes, but those are two different products, two different customer segments and two different backends. that's why the different brand name (no using the new one was my honest mistake)

Hi @patmmccann
Following discussion here can we get approve on this adapter after changes I made or we have open issues that need to be dealt with?

Hi @patmmccann , @dgirardi , @ChrisHuie
We would like to ask for your help to get things done on this adapter.
Is there something still missing and we can improve here and on the prebid-server side?
Can this be approved and wait for the next release.
Related prebid-server pr: prebid/prebid-server#4428
Thank you for you time in advance.

[FYI @bgoldin-vidazoo ]

@bgoldin-vidazoo mentioned a plan to change the brand name here but instead you just abbreviated it instead of adding a token at the end as you had initially. What's going on here? Why not just fix the existing adapter?

Hi @patmmccann , thanks again for your attention here.

To clarify: this adapter is operated by a different white-label provider and is still actively in use. That’s why we were asked to create a separate adapter rather than modify the existing one.

We understand the concern around keeping things clean and maintainable. To support that:

• We modularized shared logic into bidderUtils over a year ago to avoid duplication.
• We initially aimed to register this under pxBidAdapter, but the bidder code was already taken. Hence the fallback to progxBidAdapter.
• We’re not in a position to modify or sunset the existing adapter, as it’s managed independently by another partner.

I'm not aware of a specific policy against having multiple adapters under the same corporate entity, so if there’s a concrete action you’d like us to take in order to move this forward, please let us know. Otherwise, it feels like we’re being blocked without a clear path to resolution, and we’d really appreciate your help in unblocking this.

Thanks, Boris

Prebid's module rules mention efficiency as our first core value. I am not sure why the progx team themselves have been impossible to summon, but we're not moving forward here without them. I'm responsible for making sure prebid is a good product for publishers, and having a giant mess of adapters where no one is sure which is the real adapter for some entity is not a good experience for the publisher

@patmmccann ok, after additional discussions with px we'll replace their existing adapter. thank you

@bgoldin-vidazoo this looks good, but please consider #13549 (comment) as a follow up

Hey @patmmccann could you check #13686 ?