IX Bid Adapter : multiformat promotion #13898
Conversation
ChrisHuie
changed the title
lksharma
force-pushed
the
IX_Multiformat_FT_Promotion
branch
from
19d34b3 to
80e3676
Compare
lksharma
force-pushed
the
IX_Multiformat_FT_Promotion
branch
from
80e3676 to
2408d02
Compare
lksharma
force-pushed
the
IX_Multiformat_FT_Promotion
branch
from
2408d02 to
af2488e
Compare
|
Hi @monis0395 just following up on this PR. It’s ready for review and addresses the multiformat FT cleanup. Let me know if you have any questions or need changes from my side. Thanks for taking a look! 🙏 |
Got it, I'll go through this. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lksharma have a few questions
-
ixBidAdapter_spec.js#L4721 there’s still some code left related to
pbjs_enable_multiformat. Is this expected? -
It’s also a bit unclear whether
const FEATURE_TOGGLESis still needed:i. Currently, the code is only storing the features but not requesting them.
ii. We’re callingaddRequestedFeatureToggles(r, FEATURE_TOGGLES.REQUESTED_FEATURE_TOGGLES), but sinceREQUESTED_FEATURE_TOGGLESis empty, nothing gets appended to the request.
Should this be removed, or at least commented out so it’s removed during tree-shaking?
|
@monis0395 Thanks for the review — I’ve pushed changes to clean up the multiformat tests. For FEATURE_TOGGLES: REQUESTED_FEATURE_TOGGLES is intentionally left empty right now, but we’re keeping the addRequestedFeatureToggles(...) call as a consistent integration point for when we need to start requesting toggles in the future. |
3 participants
Type of change
Bugfix
Feature
New bidder adapter
Updated bidder adapter
Code style update (formatting, local variables)
Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
Build related changes
CI related changes
Does this change affect user-facing APIs or examples documented on http://prebid.org?
Other
Description of change
Cleans up
pbjs_enable_multiformatFT based code pathsOther information