Skip to content

Use consistent set semantics for impression/conversion sites #139

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 1, 2025

Conversation

apasel422
Copy link
Collaborator

@apasel422 apasel422 commented Apr 9, 2025

Fixes #134, #137, #138


Preview | Diff

@apasel422 apasel422 marked this pull request as ready for review April 9, 2025 17:27
Copy link
Member

@martinthomson martinthomson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This seems fine, but I'm unclear on the value of not specifying where conversions occur.

@@ -1214,12 +1214,17 @@ To perform <dfn>common matching logic</dfn>, given
1. If |now| - |lookbackDays| is after |impression|'s [=impression/timestamp=],
[=iteration/continue=].

1. If |impression|'s [=impression/conversion sites=] [=set/is empty|is not empty=]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Isn't it impossible to have an empty set?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, this PR currently allows there to be an empty set of conversion sites, unless I made a mistake somewhere.

Comment on lines +613 to +616
The sites where [=conversions=] for this impression may occur, identified by
their domain names. The <a method for=PrivateAttribution>measureConversion()</a>
method will only attribute to this impression when called by one of the indicated
sites. If empty, any site will match.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we really want this to be empty? Is there any situation where it makes sense to avoid specifying this?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you'd prefer, we could instead make the empty list an error.

CC @csharrison

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about we take this (which is unambiguously OK), then we can put the question about empty/not to the broader group.

@martinthomson martinthomson merged commit cbbe4f8 into w3c:main May 1, 2025
1 check passed
@apasel422 apasel422 deleted the site-matching branch May 1, 2025 11:24
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.

Impression-side "conversion site" field is not used
3 participants