The IQF config should define a hierarchy.

[ple13]

Currently, the post processor assumes that there are impression filters with names "ami", "mrc", "custom", and constraints across metrics are defined among them. However, these names could be different for different markets. As the report post processor requires defined hierarchy across the IQF, the IQF config should specify it.

[ple13]

CC: @kungfucraig @SanjayVas @tristanvuong2021

[SanjayVas]

We may be able to derive this rather than having it be explicitly part of the configuration. I believe the condition is that an IQF encompasses another one if the latter IQF's media types are a subset of the former and its filters are a superset of the former.

For example, "ami" (all measured impressions) would usually be defined as

external_impression_qualification_filter_id: "ami"
filter_specs {
  media_type: VIDEO
}
filter_specs {
  media_type: DISPLAY
}
filter_specs {
  media_type: OTHER
}

whereas MRC (assuming the Origin templates) would be defined as

external_impression_qualification_filter_id: "mrc"
filter_specs {
  media_type: VIDEO
  filters: {
    terms: {
      path: "video.viewable_100_percent"
      value {
        bool_value: true
      }
    }
  }
}
filter_specs {
  media_type: DISPLAY
  filters: {
    terms: {
      path: "display.viewable_50_percent_plus"
      value {
        bool_value: true
      }
    }
  }
}

[kungfucraig]

Unfortunately, when you combine the completion percentage filter it is not possible to enforce an ordering. This stems from the fact that MRC criteria is 2s and it is inherently not comparable to a completion percentage except in some boundary cases (e.g. 0% completion).

[ple13]

As we only have constraints for ami vs others (MRC, custom, etc), I think it's enough to identify which one is ami among the IQFs.