GPC: Set extension based on header #3895

przemkaczmarek · 2024-08-31T12:12:05Z

Implements #2748

request_wrapper.go 2748

exchange/exchange.go

openrtb_ext/request_wrapper.go

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

endpoints/openrtb2/auction_test.go

bsardo · 2024-09-05T14:07:17Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

-	dntEnabled  int8   = 1
-	notAmp      int8   = 0
+	dntKey       string = http.CanonicalHeaderKey("DNT")
+	secGPCHdrKey string = http.CanonicalHeaderKey("Sec-GPC")


Nitpick: secGPCKey suffices

bsardo · 2024-09-05T14:12:04Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction_test.go

-		expectError bool
+		description  string
+		headerValue  string
+		expectedGPC  string


You can remove this because expectedRegs should contain the expected GPC value.

bsardo · 2024-09-10T16:49:47Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

@@ -1516,6 +1522,25 @@ func setAuctionTypeImplicitly(r *openrtb_ext.RequestWrapper) {
 	}
 }

+func setGPCImplicitly(httpReq *http.Request, r *openrtb_ext.RequestWrapper) error {
+	secGPC := httpReq.Header.Get(secGPCHdrKey)
+	fmt.Printf("Sec-GPC Header: %s\n", secGPC)


Remove print statement

bsardo · 2024-09-10T16:50:57Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction_test.go

+		header       string
+		expectedGPC  string
+		expectError  bool
+		regs         *openrtb2.Regs


Nitpick: move regs up a line so all of the expected fields are at the end of the struct definition. Please also do this in the actual test cases.

bsardo · 2024-09-10T16:54:16Z

openrtb_ext/request_wrapper.go

+	GPC := *re.gpc
+	return &GPC


Nitpick: GPC variable name should be gpc in accordance with golang best practices

bsardo · 2024-09-10T16:55:03Z

openrtb_ext/request_wrapper.go

The code looks good. Please update openrtb_ext/request_wrapper_test.go with test coverage for all of your changes in this file.

Not sure if you missed this during your last iteration but please add/update the wrapper tests to cover changes.

bsardo · 2024-09-10T17:02:08Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction.go

+
+	gpc := "1"
+	regExt.SetGPC(&gpc)


I suggest adding the following early return just before the set:

if regExt.GetGPC() != nil { return nil }

This way we won't perform an unnecessary write which sets the dirty flag and causes extra work when rebuilding the request downstream.

Hi @przemkaczmarek, here is a super nitpick to this function.
In the issue description the logic is straightforward:

1. If the incoming request already contains regs.ext.gpc, use that. 2. Otherwise, if there's an HTTP header for Sec-GPC with a value of "1" or 1, set regs.ext.gpc to "1".

The code here does the right thing, however it's a little confusing and difficult to read. I had to read it couple of times to understand it.
Here is a suggestion that I think traces better to the requirements and might be better for readability:

func setGPCImplicitly(httpReq *http.Request, r *openrtb_ext.RequestWrapper) error { regExt, err := r.GetRegExt() if err != nil { return err } if regExt.GetGPC() != nil { return nil } secGPC := httpReq.Header.Get(secGPCKey) if secGPC == "1" { gpc := "1" regExt.SetGPC(&gpc) } return nil }

The unit test passes as is.

What do you think?

In my version of the code, I first check the value of secGPC, and if it doesn't meet the condition, the function ends immediately with return nil. In your version of the code, this happens later, which leads to unnecessary retrieval of regExt, even when it's not needed. I avoid unnecessary operations. I avoid performing costly operations (such as r.GetRegExt()) if the secGPC header does not have the value '1'. In the first version, you retrieve the regExt extension regardless of the secGPC value, which is less optimal

Yes, I understand this. I am only concerned about the readability.
Also this is a minor performance optimization (but still an optimization!) so it's up to you to change it.
I approve this PR, and if you decide to change it - I'll re-approve it right away too.

bsardo · 2024-09-10T17:29:34Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction_test.go

+			},
+		},
+		{
+			description: "sec_gpc_header_not_set_gpc_should_not_be_modified",


I suggest covering the following test cases:
regs_ext_gpc_not_set_and_header_not_set
regs_ext_gpc_not_set_and_header_is_1
regs_ext_gpc_not_set_and_header_not_1
regs_ext_gpc_is_1_and_header_is_1
regs_ext_gpc_is_1_and_header_not_1
regs_ext_other_data_and_header_is_1
regs_ext_nil_and_header_is_1
regs_nil_and_header_is_1

bsardo · 2024-09-13T18:11:38Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction_test.go

+			expectedRegs: &openrtb2.Regs{
+				Ext: []byte(`{"gpc":"1"}`),
+			},
+		},


I think we need to add these two test cases to ensure that we don't create a regs or regs.ext object if we're not writing to the gpc field:

{ description: "regs_nil_and_header_not_set", header: "", regs: nil, expectError: false, expectedRegs: nil, }, { description: "regs_ext_is_nil_and_header_not_set", header: "", regs: &openrtb2.Regs{ Ext: nil, }, expectError: false, expectedRegs: &openrtb2.Regs{ Ext: nil, }, },

bsardo · 2024-09-13T18:12:25Z

endpoints/openrtb2/auction_test.go

+				assert.NoError(t, err)
+			}
+			assert.NoError(t, r.RebuildRequest())
+			assert.JSONEq(t, string(test.expectedRegs.Ext), string(r.BidRequest.Regs.Ext))


In order to handle the two new test cases I requested you can modify this as such:

if test.expectedRegs == nil { assert.Nil(t, r.BidRequest.Regs) } else if test.expectedRegs.Ext == nil { assert.Nil(t, r.BidRequest.Regs.Ext) } else { assert.JSONEq(t, string(test.expectedRegs.Ext), string(r.BidRequest.Regs.Ext)) }

bsardo · 2024-09-13T18:13:32Z

openrtb_ext/request_wrapper.go

Not sure if you missed this during your last iteration but please add/update the wrapper tests to cover changes.

bsardo · 2024-09-16T15:53:21Z

openrtb_ext/request_wrapper_test.go

@@ -2253,6 +2254,21 @@ func TestRegExtUnmarshal(t *testing.T) {
 			expectGDPR:  ptrutil.ToPtr[int8](0),
 			expectError: true,
 		},
+		// GPC


These tests look good as they adequately cover your changes to the RegExt unmarshal function. However, there are still other request wrapper changes that require test coverage:

Update TestRebuildRegExt, which will cover your RegExt marshal changes

Add a new test TestRegExtGetGPCSetGPC that is similar to TestRegExtGetGDPRSetGDPR

przemkaczmarek · 2024-09-18T14:04:30Z

@bsardo Should I accept ? or Do You add another reviewer?

bsardo · 2024-09-18T16:31:16Z

@bsardo Should I accept ? or Do You add another reviewer?

We need two approvals to merge. I'll see if @VeronikaSolovei9 can look at it today.

Add GPC extension handling to exchange.go and

8971a36

request_wrapper.go 2748

przemkaczmarek requested a review from bsardo August 31, 2024 12:12

bsardo changed the title ~~Add GPC extension handling to exchange.go and~~ GPC: Set extension based on header Sep 3, 2024

bsardo self-assigned this Sep 3, 2024

bsardo reviewed Sep 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

exchange/exchange.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

exchange/exchange.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

exchange/exchange.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

openrtb_ext/request_wrapper.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

bsardo added the do not port label Sep 4, 2024

przemkaczmarek added 2 commits September 4, 2024 14:02

example

58aab7c

example

b7692d7

bsardo reviewed Sep 4, 2024

View reviewed changes

przemkaczmarek added 2 commits September 5, 2024 08:58

fix bugs

a2b7cf1

fix comments

c7fbfe1

bsardo reviewed Sep 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

przemkaczmarek added 3 commits September 11, 2024 14:48

fix comments

f713ff1

fix regs_nil_and_header_not_set test

5fba3db

checking validation

f8e7977

bsardo reviewed Sep 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix comments

b5acce3

bsardo reviewed Sep 16, 2024

View reviewed changes

additional test in request_wrapper_test

bff49e2

bsardo approved these changes Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

bsardo assigned VeronikaSolovei9 Sep 18, 2024

VeronikaSolovei9 approved these changes Sep 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

GPC: Set extension based on header #3895

GPC: Set extension based on header #3895

przemkaczmarek commented Aug 31, 2024 •

edited by bsardo

Loading

bsardo Sep 5, 2024

bsardo Sep 5, 2024

bsardo Sep 10, 2024

bsardo Sep 10, 2024

bsardo Sep 10, 2024

bsardo Sep 10, 2024

bsardo Sep 13, 2024

bsardo Sep 10, 2024

VeronikaSolovei9 Sep 19, 2024

przemkaczmarek Sep 20, 2024

VeronikaSolovei9 Sep 20, 2024

bsardo Sep 10, 2024

bsardo Sep 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading

bsardo Sep 13, 2024

bsardo Sep 13, 2024

bsardo Sep 16, 2024

przemkaczmarek commented Sep 18, 2024

bsardo commented Sep 18, 2024

GPC: Set extension based on header #3895

Are you sure you want to change the base?

GPC: Set extension based on header #3895

Conversation

przemkaczmarek commented Aug 31, 2024 • edited by bsardo Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bsardo Sep 13, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

przemkaczmarek commented Sep 18, 2024

bsardo commented Sep 18, 2024

przemkaczmarek commented Aug 31, 2024 •

edited by bsardo

Loading

bsardo Sep 13, 2024 •

edited

Loading