Skip to content

Conversation

@gabrielmougard
Copy link

🔧 Type of changes

  • bid adapter update

✨ What's the context?

We have a discrepancy between our Prebid Server and our Tag/PrebidJS integration. It’s not replacing the bidrequest.Imp[0].TagID with our internal value when a TagID is already present. We are able to deliver because the value is set in the bidrequest.Imp[0].Ext.placementID field, but this creates discrepancies between the connectors, and it’s not ideal.

@osulzhenko osulzhenko requested a review from CTMBNara January 2, 2026 09:18
assertThat(result.getValue())
.extracting(httpRequest -> mapper.readValue(httpRequest.getBody(), BidRequest.class))
.flatExtracting(BidRequest::getImp)
.extracting(imp -> imp.getTagid())
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Use method ref

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what do you mean ?

@osulzhenko
Copy link
Collaborator

@gabrielmougard any update?

@gabrielmougard
Copy link
Author

Hi @osulzhenko , will update today, thanks for the reminder :)

We have a discrepancy between our Prebid Server and our Tag/PrebidJS integration. It’s not replacing the `bidrequest.Imp[0].TagID` with our internal value when a TagID is already present.

We are able to deliver because the value is set in the `bidrequest.Imp[0].Ext.placementID` field, but this creates discrepancies between the connectors, and it’s not ideal.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants