-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 213
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement missing VAST 4.1 trackers #333
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM! Let's get another approval and then you can merge it :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Small comment otherwise LGTM :)
spec/vast_trackers.spec.js
Outdated
|
||
it('should have emitted minimize event and called trackUrl', () => { | ||
expect(spyEmitter).toHaveBeenCalledWith('minimize', { | ||
trackingURLTemplates: ['http://example.com/linear-minimize'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this use the value from the ad object instead of hard coding it ? Same for all other hard coded values
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
True, i replaced it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually I disagree with this change, because if one day we change the sample file and accidentally remove trackingURLTemplates
in the unit test it would pass because undefined === undefined
. So we could either keep the hardcoded values, or we add another expect
to make sure the value is not undefined or null. Let's discuss this :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO the second option is better (add another expect). For instance if a macro needs to be added to any URL from the sample file, each hardcoded value will have to be updated. It is not a big deal but if we can avoid that 😅
Description
Implemented following missing trackers:
Issue
Implement missing VAST 4.1 trackers
TODO
Type