Menu

Frozen RTBLint 0.14.7 Agrees with 75 of 77 In-Scope Cases and 84 of 140 Prebid Expectations
📰

Frozen RTBLint 0.14.7 Agrees with 75 of 77 In-Scope Cases and 84 of 140 Prebid Expectations

DEV Community: rust·Aleksander Sekowski·about 13 hours ago
#hTO5nEcm
#devtorust#devto#dev#request#openrtb
Reading 0:00
15s threshold

A bid response can be valid JSON, satisfy every local field constraint, and still answer the wrong auction. Its id can belong to another request. Its impid can name an impression that was never offered. Its currency can sit outside the request's allowed set. None of that is visible in the response alone.

The same problem shows up one step earlier. OpenRTB integrations share field names without sharing one wire contract. The specification types many flags as integers. The IAB protobuf model types a set of those fields as booleans. Google's Authorized Buyers JSON adds its own serialization. Prebid Server's publisher-facing auction adds bidder selection and stored requests. A value that is acceptable at one boundary is a useful diagnostic at another.

That is why "is this OpenRTB valid?" is the wrong question until the check names four things: the specification snapshot, the wire encoding, the integration direction, and whether an originating request was supplied.…

Continue reading — create a free account

Join HashtagPLUS to read full articles, follow hashtags, vote, and join the conversation.