OpenRTB v2.6-202309 #11
Conversation
openrtb2/deal.go
Outdated
| // An array of DurFloors objects (Section 3.2.35) indicating the floor | ||
| // prices for video creatives of various durations that the buyer may bid with. | ||
| DurFloors []DurFloors `json:"durfloors,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Description in spec:
Container for floor price by duration information, to be used if a given deal is eligible for video or audio demand. An array of DurFloors objects (see Section 3.2.35).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good find. This was a copy/paste error. Fixed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might be out of the scope of this PR: openrtb2.x/2.6.md, section 3.2.34 refers to this attribute as min_refresh_interval_seconds from commit a6ab486cbddb2d91031cd7b554299da7a09adaf6 on. Should we rename to MinRefreshInterval or leave it as MinInt?
23 // Attribute:
24 // minint
25 // Type:
26 // integer; recommended
27 // Description:
28 // The minimum refresh interval in seconds. This applies to all
29 // refresh types. This is the (uninterrupted) time the ad creative
30 // will be rendered before refreshing to the next creative. If
31 // the field is absent, the exposure time is unknown. This field
32 // does not account for viewability or external factors such as a
33 // user leaving a page.
34 MinInt int `json:"minint,omitempty"`
+ MinRefreshInterval int `json:"min_refresh_int,omitempty"`
openrtb2/refsettings.go
| @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ import ( | |||
|
|
|||
| // 3.2.1 Object: BidRequest | |||
| // | |||
| // The top-level bid request object contains a globally unique bid request or auction ID. | |||
| // The top-level bid request object contains an exchange unique bid request or auction ID. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it's just me but I find the comment in line 25 below easier to understand than this one. At least upon first read. I realize this is the exact sentence found in the docs but, could we slightly reword?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd like to match the spec, but I can propose an update to the spec. What would sound better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about: "The top-level bid request object contains an exchange-assigned unique bid request ID or auction ID.
"?
| @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ import ( | |||
|
|
|||
| // 3.2.1 Object: BidRequest | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request Add AutoRefresh and AutoRefreshSettings to Bid Request of the openrtb2.x/2.6.md repository lists AutoRefresh and AutoRefreshSettings under the BidRequest list but, this fields, along with DurFlooors are not in the table depicted in the 3.2.1 - Object: BidRequest section. Are they getting added to the table, and eventually, as fields of the BidRequest struct eventually? Should we add them to the BidRequest object already?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm curious what pointed your attention to that specific commit? That was a commit to a develop branch. The location was moved to the Imp object before release.
Are they getting added to the table, and eventually, as fields of the BidRequest struct eventually?
No.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The main branch correctly places the refresh object in the desired location.
The field was called |
Updates the object model for OpenRTB 2.6-202309 release.