Optout Bid Adapter: migrate endpoints and batch requests with custom params by doelwit · Pull Request #14282 · prebid/Prebid.js

doelwit · 2025-12-18T13:38:43Z

Type of change

Description of change

I have checked both new and updated because the old adapter didnt even work anymore because the urls became obsolete. Also added some new features like custom paramters and the single request

Other information

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR updates the optout bid adapter with significant architectural changes. The adapter migrates from obsolete URLs to new domains (optoutadserving.com/optinadserving.com), implements single-request batching for multiple bids, and adds support for custom parameters and ortb2 data.

Key changes:

Switches from per-bid requests to a single batched request for all bids
Adds custom parameter normalization with support for arrays, objects, and circular reference handling
Implements conditional ortb2 payload inclusion via per-bid flag
Updates endpoint URLs to new domain infrastructure

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 20 comments.

File	Description
modules/optoutBidAdapter.js	Core adapter logic updated to batch requests, normalize custom parameters, handle ortb2 data, and route to new endpoints based on GDPR consent
test/spec/modules/optoutBidAdapter_spec.js	Comprehensive test suite rewritten to cover single request batching, custom parameter normalization, GDPR routing logic, and response interpretation

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:32Z

+    const bidRequests = [
+      {
+        bidder: 'optout',
+        params: { adSlot: 'prebid_demo', publisher: '8' },
+        bidId: 'bidA'
      },
-      'auctionId': 'e97cafd0-ebfc-4f5c-b7c9-baa0fd335a4a'
-    }];
+      {
+        bidder: 'optout',
+        params: { adSlot: 'testslot2', publisher: '8' },
+        bidId: 'bidB'
+      }
+    ];


There's no test coverage for the scenario where multiple bid requests have different publisher values. Given that buildRequests now batches all bids into a single request and only uses the publisher from the first bid, this edge case should be tested to verify the expected behavior.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:33Z

+  describe('interpretResponse', function () {
+    it('maps bids correctly using slot id or requestId', function () {
+      const bidRequest = {
+        data: {
+          slots: [
+            { id: 'slotA', requestId: 'bidA' },
+            { id: 'slotB', requestId: 'bidB' }
+          ]
+        }
+      };
+
+      const serverResponse = {
+        body: {
+          bids: [
+            { requestId: 'bidA', cpm: 1, currency: 'EUR', width: 300, height: 250, ad: '<div/>', ttl: 300, creativeId: 'c1' },
+            { requestId: 'slotB', cpm: 2, currency: 'EUR', width: 728, height: 90, ad: '<div/>', ttl: 300, creativeId: 'c2' }
+          ]
+        }
+      };
+
+      const out = spec.interpretResponse(serverResponse, bidRequest);
+      expect(out).to.have.lengthOf(2);
+      expect(out[0].netRevenue).to.equal(true);
+    });
+
+    it('filters bids whose requestId does not map to a sent slot/requestId', function () {
+      const bidRequest = {
+        data: {
+          slots: [{ id: 'slotA', requestId: 'bidA' }]
+        }
+      };
+
+      const serverResponse = {
+        body: {
+          bids: [{ requestId: 'unknown', cpm: 1, currency: 'EUR', width: 300, height: 250, ad: '<div/>', ttl: 300, creativeId: 'c1' }]
+        }
+      };
+
+      const out = spec.interpretResponse(serverResponse, bidRequest);
+      expect(out).to.deep.equal([]);
+    });
+
+    it('supports serverResponse.body as an array (fallback behavior)', function () {
+      const bidRequest = {
+        data: {
+          slots: [{ id: 'slotA', requestId: 'bidA' }]
+        }
+      };
+
+      const serverResponse = {
+        body: [{ requestId: 'bidA', cpm: '1.2', currency: 'EUR', width: '300', height: '250', ad: '<div/>', ttl: '120', creativeId: 'c1' }]
+      };
+
+      const out = spec.interpretResponse(serverResponse, bidRequest);
+      expect(out).to.have.lengthOf(1);
+      expect(out[0].cpm).to.equal(1.2);
+      expect(out[0].ttl).to.equal(120);
+    });
+  });


Missing test coverage for the interpretResponse function when the server returns bids with missing or invalid requestId fields. This edge case should be tested to ensure the adapter handles malformed server responses gracefully.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:33Z

+        return {
+          requestId: prebidRequestId,
+          cpm: Number(bid.cpm) || 0,
+          currency: bid.currency,
+          width: Number(bid.width),
+          height: Number(bid.height),
+          ad: bid.ad,
+          ttl: Number(bid.ttl) || 300,
+          creativeId: bid.creativeId,
+          netRevenue: true,
+          optOutExt: bid.optOutExt,
+          meta: bid.meta
+        };


The interpretResponse function should validate required bid fields before constructing the bid object. Currently, if bid.currency, bid.ad, bid.width, or bid.height are missing, they'll be undefined in the returned object. Consider adding validation to filter out incomplete bids: if (!bid.cpm || !bid.currency || !bid.ad || !bid.width || !bid.height) return null;

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:33Z

+  describe('getUserSyncs', function () {
+    it('returns [] when gdprConsent missing', function () {
+      const out = spec.getUserSyncs({ iframeEnabled: true }, [], null);
+      expect(out).to.deep.equal([]);
+    });
+
+    it('returns [] when iframeEnabled is false', function () {
+      const out = spec.getUserSyncs(
+        { iframeEnabled: false },
+        [],
+        { gdprApplies: false, consentString: 'abc' }
+      );
+      expect(out).to.deep.equal([]);
+    });
+
+    it('returns iframe sync when iframeEnabled and gdprApplies is false', function () {
+      const out = spec.getUserSyncs(
+        { iframeEnabled: true },
+        [],
+        { gdprApplies: false, consentString: 'abc' }
+      );
+
+      expect(out).to.have.lengthOf(1);
+      expect(out[0].type).to.equal('iframe');
+      expect(out[0].url).to.include('gdpr=0');
+      expect(out[0].url).to.include('gdpr_consent=' + encodeURIComponent('abc'));
+    });
+
+    it('returns iframe sync when gdprApplies true and purpose1 consent true', function () {
+      sinon.stub(gdprUtils, 'hasPurpose1Consent').returns(true);
+
+      const out = spec.getUserSyncs(
+        { iframeEnabled: true },
+        [],
+        { gdprApplies: true, consentString: 'CONSENT' }
+      );
+
+      expect(out).to.have.lengthOf(1);
+      expect(out[0].type).to.equal('iframe');
+      expect(out[0].url).to.include('gdpr=1');
+      expect(out[0].url).to.include('gdpr_consent=' + encodeURIComponent('CONSENT'));
+    });
+
+    it('returns [] when gdprApplies true and purpose1 consent false', function () {
+      sinon.stub(gdprUtils, 'hasPurpose1Consent').returns(false);
+
+      const out = spec.getUserSyncs(
+        { iframeEnabled: true },
+        [],
+        { gdprApplies: true, consentString: 'CONSENT' }
+      );
+
+      expect(out).to.deep.equal([]);
    });
  });


Missing test coverage for getUserSyncs when gdprConsent.consentString is undefined or when syncOptions has both iframeEnabled and pixelEnabled set. These scenarios should be tested to ensure the function handles all possible input combinations.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:36Z

-        },
+    }
+
+    const addOrtb = validBidRequests.some((f) => !!f?.params?.includeOrtb2);


The variable 'addOrtb' is abbreviated, which is inconsistent with the more descriptive naming style used elsewhere in the code (e.g., 'consentString', 'gdprConsent'). Consider renaming to 'includeOrtb2' or 'shouldIncludeOrtb2' for better clarity.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:37Z

+            'https://umframe.optinadserving.com/matching/iframe?gdpr=' +
+            gdpr +
+            '&gdpr_consent=' +
+            encodeURIComponent(gdprConsent.consentString || '')


The getUserSyncs function accesses gdprConsent.consentString without verifying that gdprConsent is an object. Although there's an early return if !gdprConsent, between lines 198 and 216, gdprConsent could theoretically be a non-object truthy value. While unlikely in practice, add type validation for defensive programming.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:37Z

-describe('optoutAdapterTest', function () {
-  describe('bidRequestValidity', function () {
-    it('bidRequest with adslot param', function () {
+describe('optoutAdapterTest (new adapter)', function () {


The test description says 'optoutAdapterTest (new adapter)' but this is an update to an existing adapter. The description should be more accurate, such as 'optoutAdapterTest' or 'Optout Bid Adapter Test'.

Suggested change

describe('optoutAdapterTest (new adapter)', function () {

describe('Optout Bid Adapter Test', function () {

Copilot · 2025-12-18T13:50:37Z

+    it('uses optout endpoint when no gdprConsent', function () {
      const requests = spec.buildRequests(bidRequests, {});
-      requests.forEach(function(requestItem) {
-        expect(requestItem.url).to.match(new RegExp('adscience-nocookie\\.nl/prebid/display'));
-      });
+      expect(requests[0].url).to.match(/optoutadserving\.com\/prebid\/display/);
+    });
+
+    it('uses optin endpoint when gdprApplies is false', function () {
+      const bidderRequest = {
+        gdprConsent: {
+          gdprApplies: false,
+          consentString: 'test',
+          apiVersion: 2
+        }
+      };
+
+      const requests = spec.buildRequests(bidRequests, bidderRequest);
+      expect(requests[0].url).to.match(/optinadserving\.com\/prebid\/display/);
+      expect(requests[0].data.gdpr).to.equal(0);
+    });
+
+    it('always includes sdk_version=prebid', function () {
+      const requests = spec.buildRequests(bidRequests, {});
+      expect(requests[0].data.sdk_version).to.equal('prebid');
    });

-    it('bidRequest id', function () {
+    it('currency defaults to EUR when not configured', function () {
+      config.resetConfig();
      const requests = spec.buildRequests(bidRequests, {});
-      expect(requests[0].data.requestId).to.equal('9304jr394ddfj');
-      expect(requests[1].data.requestId).to.equal('893j4f94e8jei');
+      expect(requests[0].data.cur.adServerCurrency).to.equal('EUR');
    });

-    it('bidRequest with config for currency', function () {
+    it('currency uses config when provided', function () {
      config.setConfig({
-        currency: {
-          adServerCurrency: 'USD',
-          granularityMultiplier: 1
-        }
-      })
+        currency: { adServerCurrency: 'USD', granularityMultiplier: 1 }
+      });

      const requests = spec.buildRequests(bidRequests, {});
      expect(requests[0].data.cur.adServerCurrency).to.equal('USD');
-      expect(requests[1].data.cur.adServerCurrency).to.equal('USD');
    });


Missing test coverage for the scenario when buildRequests is called with different GDPR consent configurations (e.g., when apiVersion is 1 vs 2, or when consentString is an empty string). These edge cases should be tested to ensure the adapter handles various GDPR scenarios correctly.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 8 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T14:26:25Z

+    const mergedCustoms = Object.assign(
+      {},
+      firstBid?.params?.customs,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.ext?.data,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.site?.ext?.data,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.app?.ext?.data,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.user?.ext?.data
+    );


The first bid's params.customs are being merged into request-level customs (line 139) which will apply to all slots in the batched request, not just the first slot. This means that customs intended for only the first bid will incorrectly be applied to all bids in the batch.

Consider removing firstBid?.params?.customs from the mergedCustoms assignment, since per-bid customs are already handled separately at the slot level (line 125). Request-level customs should only come from ortb2 data sources.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T14:26:27Z

+    const customs = normalizeCustoms(mergedCustoms);
+
+    const data = {
+      publisher: firstBid.params.publisher, // intentionally uses the first bid's publisher when batching


When batching multiple bids with different publishers, only the first bid's publisher is used for all slots in the request. This could lead to incorrect attribution or billing when multiple publishers are involved in a single auction.

Consider either: (1) creating separate requests per publisher, or (2) documenting this batching limitation prominently in the adapter documentation, or (3) validating that all bids share the same publisher and returning separate requests otherwise.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

modules/optoutBidAdapter.js:53

This negation always evaluates to false.

  if (!input || typeof input !== 'object') return {};

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T17:00:49Z

+
+      const slot = {
+        adSlot: b.params.adSlot,


Critical mismatch between slot construction and response mapping. Line 133 sets slot.adSlot = b.params.adSlot but line 192 in interpretResponse tries to map using s.id. The slot object should set id property with the adSlot value (line 133 should be id: b.params.adSlot || b.params.adslot), otherwise the response mapping will fail because s.id will be undefined for most slots (only defined when params.id is explicitly provided).

Suggested change

const slot = {

adSlot: b.params.adSlot,

const adSlot = b?.params?.adSlot || b?.params?.adslot;

const slot = {

adSlot: adSlot,

id: adSlot,

Copilot · 2025-12-18T17:00:49Z

+    const customs = normalizeCustoms(mergedCustoms);
+
+    const data = {
+      publisher: firstBid.params.publisher, // intentionally uses the first bid's publisher when batching


The comment at line 156 states "intentionally uses the first bid's publisher when batching", but there's no validation that all bids in the batch have the same publisher. This could lead to incorrect behavior when bids from different publishers are batched together, as only the first publisher ID will be used for all slots. Consider either validating that all bids have the same publisher, or creating separate requests per publisher.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T17:00:49Z

+      const slotCustoms = normalizeCustoms(b?.params?.customs);
+
+      const slot = {
+        adSlot: b.params.adSlot,


Property naming inconsistency: the slot object uses 'adSlot' (line 133) while the validator checks for both 'adSlot' and 'adslot' (line 95). This inconsistency should be resolved by standardizing on one property name throughout the adapter. The validator suggests supporting both for backward compatibility, but the buildRequests function only uses params.adSlot.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T17:00:50Z

+    const mergedCustoms = Object.assign(
+      {},
+      firstBid?.params?.customs,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.ext?.data,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.site?.ext?.data,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.app?.ext?.data,
+      bidderRequest?.ortb2?.user?.ext?.data
+    );
+
+    const customs = normalizeCustoms(mergedCustoms);


The merging logic for customs on lines 144-151 could lead to unexpected behavior. It merges customs from firstBid.params.customs with multiple ortb2 data sources, but then applies normalizeCustoms to the merged result. Since normalizeCustoms expects to work with a clean object and doesn't handle nested merging well, properties from later sources will overwrite earlier ones even if they're of different types (e.g., an array from params could be overwritten by a string from ortb2). Consider documenting this merge precedence or handling the merge more carefully to preserve intended data types.

Copilot · 2025-12-18T17:00:50Z

+      if (b.params && b.params.id != null) {
+        slot.id = String(b.params.id);
+      }


Lines 137-139 set slot.id conditionally from params.id, which conflicts with the expected behavior where slot.id should be the adSlot identifier. This logic suggests params.id is meant to override the slot identifier, but this creates confusion. If params.id is meant to be a different field (like a publisher-specific ID), it should use a different property name. Otherwise, this conditional assignment should be removed once slot.id is properly set to the adSlot value.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

github-actions · 2026-01-12T13:25:54Z

Tread carefully! This PR adds 1 linter error (possibly disabled through directives):

modules/optoutBidAdapter.js (+1 error)

Copilot

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 876b23d8b4

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-01-12T16:36:52Z

+    const bids = Array.isArray(body)
+      ? body
+      : Array.isArray(body?.bids)
+        ? body.bids
+        : [];


Accept single-bid response bodies

The new response parsing only accepts serverResponse.body when it is an array or when it has a bids array. In the previous adapter, a single bid object returned from the endpoint was passed through as-is and could be handled by Prebid. Now, if the server responds with a single bid object (e.g., {requestId, cpm, ...} for a single-slot request), bids becomes [] and the adapter drops the bid entirely, resulting in no bids returned for that auction.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

doelwit · 2026-01-21T12:49:21Z

@gwhigs It seems the "duplicate code" check is failing but I dont know why. Are you gonna do the manual review anyway or are you waiting until all tests are succesful? Thanks

doelwit · 2026-02-05T08:08:06Z

Hello @gwhigs @patmmccann somebody please help ?

patmmccann · 2026-02-23T15:17:12Z

@codex review

patmmccann · 2026-02-23T15:20:11Z

Can you pull master? not sure why this duplicate code check is failing to launch

patmmccann · 2026-02-23T15:20:42Z

@codex can you suggest a better title for this pr

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-02-23T15:21:44Z

Suggested PR title

Optout Bid Adapter: migrate endpoints and batch requests with custom params

Why this is better

It follows Prebid’s expected Module: Change format from the PR template. .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.mdL4
It also matches the repo-specific guidance to title module changes as X Adapter: short description. AGENTS.mdL16
It describes the main scope you outlined (adapter update + batching/custom params), which is clearer than update optout bidadapter.

If you want a shorter variant:

Optout Bid Adapter: update endpoints and request batching

Checks/commands I ran

⚠️ curl -I 'https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=Prebid.js%20pull%20request%20title%20Module:%20Change' | head (web search attempt blocked with HTTP 403 in this environment)
✅ nl -ba AGENTS.md | sed -n '1,220p'
✅ nl -ba .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md | sed -n '1,90p'

View task →

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d8b5218c9f

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-02-23T15:23:58Z

+    const customs = normalizeCustoms(mergedCustoms);
+
+    const data = {
+      publisher: firstBid.params.publisher, // intentionally uses the first bid's publisher when batching


Preserve per-slot publisher when batching requests

The batched payload always uses firstBid.params.publisher, so if a page sends multiple optout bids with different params.publisher values, every slot after the first is submitted under the wrong publisher account. The previous implementation sent one request per bid and preserved each publisher, so this introduces a functional regression that can return incorrect demand or misattribute traffic.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

it does not make sense to have multiple publisher ids in one request or on one page/site so this is fine behavior.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-02-23T15:23:58Z

+      if (b.params && b.params.id != null) {
+        slot.id = String(b.params.id);
+      } else {
+        slot.id = adSlotValue;


Prevent duplicate slot IDs from clobbering bid mapping

When params.id is not provided, slot.id falls back to adSlot, but interpretResponse later maps responses with a Map keyed by that id. If two requests share the same adSlot, the later entry overwrites the earlier one, so responses keyed by slot id can be attached to the wrong requestId (or effectively drop one slot). This is a new batching regression because the old per-request flow never had this collision path.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

This is fine, it is intentional. If you want to re-use an adslot you need to use the "id" parameter. Typical users do not re-use adslots. Re-using the same adslot however should result in the same bidding parameters so it doesn't matter if they get mixed up.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 061f3910b8

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-03-05T10:15:08Z

+    const customs = normalizeCustoms(mergedCustoms);
+
+    const data = {
+      publisher: firstBid.params.publisher, // intentionally uses the first bid's publisher when batching


Group batched slots by publisher

The batched payload always uses firstBid.params.publisher, so a single request can silently mix slots from different params.publisher values under the wrong account. This is a regression from the previous per-bid request behavior: if one auction includes two optout bids with different publishers, at least one slot will be sent with an incorrect publisher and can be rejected or misattributed by the endpoint. Please split batched requests by publisher (or enforce/validate a single publisher per batch).

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

it does not make sense to have multiple publisher ids in one request or on one page/site so this is fine behavior.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-03-05T10:15:08Z

+      sentSlots.map((s) => [String(s.id), String(s.requestId)])
+    );


Preserve one-to-one slot ID mapping in interpretResponse

interpretResponse builds slotIdToPrebidId with a Map keyed by slot.id, but slot.id defaults to adSlot and is not guaranteed unique across bids. When duplicate slot IDs exist and the server responds with slot IDs (the code explicitly supports this path), earlier entries are overwritten and bids are mapped to the wrong requestId, causing missed or misrouted bid responses.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

This is fine, it is intentional. If you want to re-use an adslot you need to use the "id" parameter. Typical users do not re-use adslots. Re-using the same adslot however should result in the same bidding parameters so it doesn't matter if they get mixed up.

…bid.js

coveralls · 2026-03-05T10:33:41Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 22892980852

Details

431 of 434 (99.31%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage increased (+0.008%) to 96.335%

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
modules/optoutBidAdapter.js	92	95	96.84%

Totals
Change from base Build 22873923570:	0.008%
Covered Lines:	217908
Relevant Lines:	226198

💛 - Coveralls

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: c1ad316e26

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-03-08T12:47:02Z

+    const customs = normalizeCustoms(mergedCustoms);
+
+    const data = {
+      publisher: firstBid.params.publisher, // intentionally uses the first bid's publisher when batching


Preserve per-slot publisher IDs when batching

This batching logic always sends data.publisher from the first bid, so auctions containing multiple optout bids with different params.publisher values will submit later slots under the wrong publisher account. The previous implementation sent each bid with its own publisher, so this is a behavior regression that can cause mismatched account routing and missed bids; requests should be split by publisher (or include publisher per slot).

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

it does not make sense to have multiple publisher ids in one request or on one page/site so this is fine behavior.

doelwit · 2026-03-08T13:15:54Z

I dont get it, somehow I suddenly had to fix a merge conflict. after this the linter fails on some other bid adapter.. this is getting frustrating.

…params (prebid#14282) * updated optout adapter to include single request, custom params * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * changes for copilot review * more fixes for copilot review * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * add more test coverage and improvements to adapter * fix errors * remove duplicate code/refactored code * fixed test case with invalid url * fixed test case with invalid url attempt 2 * remove invalid url check altogether * remove trailing spaces * remove trailing spaces * Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update test/spec/modules/optoutBidAdapter_spec.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update test/spec/modules/optoutBidAdapter_spec.js Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

doelwit and others added 6 commits December 18, 2025 11:46

updated optout adapter to include single request, custom params

f76be85

Merge branch 'prebid:master' into master

c3465e3

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

08c5eb7

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

58e5734

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

253efa9

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

changes for copilot review

0eee819

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 18, 2025 13:38

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of doelwit December 18, 2025 13:39 View session

review-assignment-bot Bot requested a review from gwhigs December 18, 2025 13:39

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Comment thread modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

more fixes for copilot review

d81bd2a

doelwit requested a review from Copilot December 18, 2025 14:18

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of doelwit December 18, 2025 14:19 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

doelwit and others added 6 commits December 18, 2025 15:32

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

f5ae13e

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

a3354be

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

eb827d5

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

5ef2357

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

080be25

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

5de0eb4

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

doelwit requested a review from Copilot December 18, 2025 16:56

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of doelwit December 18, 2025 16:56 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 18, 2025

View reviewed changes

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

6617dab

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

doelwit marked this pull request as draft December 18, 2025 17:06

doelwit added 2 commits January 12, 2026 14:16

add more test coverage and improvements to adapter

2c0cbc4

fix errors

e8d138a

remove duplicate code/refactored code

49a1409

doelwit requested a review from Copilot January 12, 2026 16:29

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of doelwit January 12, 2026 16:29 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread modules/optoutBidAdapter.js Outdated

Comment thread test/spec/modules/optoutBidAdapter_spec.js Outdated

Comment thread test/spec/modules/optoutBidAdapter_spec.js Outdated

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

doelwit and others added 3 commits January 13, 2026 09:27

Update modules/optoutBidAdapter.js

c80288c

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update test/spec/modules/optoutBidAdapter_spec.js

8234770

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

Update test/spec/modules/optoutBidAdapter_spec.js

d8b5218

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

doelwit requested a review from patmmccann January 28, 2026 11:36

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Feb 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

patmmccann changed the title ~~update optout bidadapter~~ migrate endpoints and batch requests with custom params Feb 23, 2026

patmmccann changed the title ~~migrate endpoints and batch requests with custom params~~ Optout Bid Adapter: migrate endpoints and batch requests with custom params Feb 23, 2026

patmmccann added the needs update label Feb 23, 2026

doelwit and others added 2 commits March 5, 2026 11:06

Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master'

fb0531b

Merge branch 'prebid:master' into master

061f391

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Mar 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/optoutadvertising-com/Pre…

f476bb6

…bid.js

Merge branch 'master' into master

c1ad316

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Mar 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'master' into master

c2a69c8

patmmccann approved these changes Mar 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

patmmccann merged commit e512167 into prebid:master Mar 12, 2026
102 checks passed

	describe('optoutAdapterTest (new adapter)', function () {
	describe('Optout Bid Adapter Test', function () {

Conversation

doelwit commented Dec 18, 2025

Type of change

Description of change

Other information

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

💡 Codex Review

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Jan 12, 2026

doelwit Mar 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading