Macro object clarification - is Bid Response macros example correct? about openrtb HOT 4 CLOSED

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 8:15 AM mxmCherry ***@***.***> wrote: I personally understand Macro <https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/openrtb/blob/master/OpenRTB%203.0%20BETA.md#object--macro-> object documentation as this: { "key": "${OPENRTB_ID}", "value": "XXX", "ext": { "custom": "data" } } But in Bid Response <https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/openrtb/blob/master/OpenRTB%203.0%20BETA.md#bid-response-> example it's: { "TIMESTAMP": "1127987134" }, { "CLICKTOKEN": "A7D800F2716DB" } Which is good for traffic saving. Which is the correct variant to use it? (IMO, Macro section needs amendment then to eliminate such questions in future) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#10>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEaQXjYeKxW_26_eC1Xl4H86qO0CcP8tks5ukyr5gaJpZM4XbGaL> .

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 3:40 PM mxmCherry ***@***.***> wrote: Oh, I definitely missed the CUSTOM_... bit, thanks for explanation. ------------------------------ Though looks that my question is about something other - the Macro JSON format itself. And I'd better prefer to double-confirm it to be 100% sure I'm getting it right (docs are somewhat confusing). So looks like this is the way to marshal the Macro object: { "TIMESTAMP": "2018-10-14" } Which: - is provided in BidResponse example JSON <https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/openrtb/blob/master/OpenRTB%203.0%20BETA.md#bid-response-> ; - so meant to be marshaled in this particular way by 3.0 spec; - and it would result in ${CUSTOM_TIMESTAMP} to be replaced with 2018-10-14 in prepared ad snippet/URLs. Right? ------------------------------ I have some concerns about this (the format itself and then how it's explained in spec). 1. IMO, this format is inconvenient for typed languages - you usually have to declare classes/structs with predefined set of object keys for proper marshal/unmarshal. Having dynamic keys usually requires more lines or more tricky code for proper processing (unless you switch to less performant/GC-heavy map/dictionary types). Roughly: { "key": "TIMESTAMP", "value": "2018-10-14", "ext": { "custom": "data" } } Is way more easier to parse (or, better said, not to "parse", but to "model" - make class for it) than: { "TIMESTAMP": "2018-10-14", "ext": { "custom": "data" } } Yep, I get that "convenient" way is much less compact than having dynamic keys (as suggested in spec), but still - clearer and easier to use (especially with "key" and "value" shortened to just "k" and "v"). Also, for example, in Bid object <https://github.com/InteractiveAdvertisingBureau/openrtb/blob/master/OpenRTB%203.0%20BETA.md#object--bid-> doc Macro is used as object array. Which, to be honest, would look weird (at least to me): [ { "TIMESTAMP": "2018-10-14" }, { "FOO": "BAR" }, { "BAZ": "QUX" } ] Like, why pack these into array, if we could just have: { "TIMESTAMP": "2018-10-14", "FOO": "BAR", "BAZ": "QUX" } (which would be even more compact) That's another reason of why I was confused with Macro doc (the object array thingy). Anyway, I don't think that's going to change (at least not after 3.0 hit the BETA status), so consider this just a way-too-late developer's rant 🙂 1. This dynamic-key format is not very obvious from the doc: Attribute Type Definition key string; required Name of a buyer specific macro. value string Value to substitute for each instance of the macro found in markup. ext object Optional demand source specific extensions. As a developer, "used" to other OpenRTB 3.0 object docs, I'm expecting Macro JSON to look like this: { "key": "TIMESTAMP", "value": "2018-10-14", "ext": { "custom": "data" } } And not like this: { "TIMESTAMP": "2018-10-14", "ext": { "custom": "data" } } I'd "vote" to add some explanation / note / WARNING that it's the second JSON example and not the first. Like, right in Macro object section, and not just in Examples (which itself is a bit sloppy - I mean #9 <#9>). Though I can't think of a better way than including macro JSON example right into Macro object section (which would contradict other object docs though). — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#10 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEaQXqzmx7RuS12kIYNnPB96dwwGVn-Oks5uk5MtgaJpZM4XbGaL> .