# Description
Changes:
* Tags services to be billed (invoiced to host) in the staging models of product_service and protection_plan
* Propagates into booking_service_detail master table. This also computes billable dates.
* Propagates into booking_summary master table. This has the final determination of a booking being billable or not, and when the first and last billing should occur.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #27619
# Description
Ensures `id_role` are lower case. This should avoid issues downstream in dbt tests.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [ ] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #26110
# Description
The model `stg_core__superhog_user` contained the fields `created_date_utc` and `updated_date_utc`, which were actually timestamps, not dates. This created issues a while ago in KPIs that were fixed by forcing a date conversion at `int_kpis` level, but the source issue remained unfixed.
This PR just creates the proper fields in staging, meaning:
* `created_at_utc` and `created_date_utc`
* `updated_at_utc` and `updated_date_utc`
And propagates the changes through all dependencies. On KPIs, it also removes the hardcoded date conversion since it's no longer needed. It also adds the different schema entries on which these fields were already defined. Note I didn't update the staging entry since there's no entry for the rest of the fields.
I recommend checking this PR in the commits order.
What I've tested:
* Unified User and User Host have plenty of dependencies that I've checked one by one, at each dependency layer by using dbt docs.
* Run `core__unified_user` and the full execution of +`mtd_aggregated_metrics`
What clearly will fail:
* There's the famous `Users_dashboard` PBI report that shouldn't exist that has a dependency with `core__unified_user`. This report will fail. But it does not exist. I'd like to drop it once and forever
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data. **See above**
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [X] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged. **The staging model is incremental!**
Related work items: #23703
# Description
Propagates `AccountType` to staging by creating the first version of the model `stg_core__account_type`
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #18944
# Description
Staging model for all screen & protect price tables.
There are 4 types of protections for screen & protect and each of them have their own prices
# Checklist
- [x] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [x] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [x] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [x] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Staging model for all screen & protect price tables
Related work items: #25360
# Description
Following a communication from Gus, the following fields in Booking table are going to be removed:
* StagingHostBookingId
* AdditionalGuests
This PR aims to remove DWH dependencies.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [NA] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [NA] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [X] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged. **Yes, Booking table in staging is incremental**
Related work items: #25405
# Description
Staging model for S&P
What do you think of the name of both the folder and model, I would prefer to leave it as `screen&protect` instead of `screen_and_protect` what do you think??
# Checklist
- [x] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [x] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [x] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [x] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Staging model for S&P
Related work items: #25209
# Description
This PR aims to properly fix the Accommodation removal of fields that have been dropped today.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [NA] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [NA] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #25199
# Description
Brings VerificationRequestFeatureFlag to staging. Needs further modelling to clean data for A/B test tracking purposes, but this will be done in intermediate.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #25145
# Description
Adds Protected accepted value - linked to new services after New Dash v3 launch
# Checklist
- [NA] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [NA] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [NA] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Adds new PROTECTED accepted value for new pricing services
# Description
Fixes dbt execution after 2 fields in use were dropped in the backend.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [NA] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [NA] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #25196
# Description
Aims to bring the 2 new billing tables in the scope of New Pricing into DWH.
These correspond to a Product Service table and a Protection Plan table.
Further modelling is expected in intermediate. Main goal would be to enrich the tables of `int_core__booking_service_detail` and `int_core__booking_summary`
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #20809
# Description
Minor Changes:
* Computation in staging of `is_default_service` column for Basic Screening. This includes `stg_core__product_service`, `stg_core__protection_plan` and the schema entry.
* Propagation of `is_default_service` to intermediate. This includes `int_core__protection_plan_to_price`, `int_core__product_service_to_price` and the schema entry.
* Adapting a small data test to include a new case in `stg_core__booking_view_to_service` schema entry.
Main Changes:
* New fields and re-order existing ones on `int_core__booking_to_service`.
* Changed materialisation of `int_core__booking_to_service` to a view, since the new model `int_core__booking_service_detail` is materialised as table.
New Model:
* First version of `int_core__booking_service_detail`. This model includes the current state of a Service that is applied within a Booking. It includes many Booking attributes, Service attributes as well as some meta data fields regarding the business scope and type, according to the [New Pricing](https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/All-Services-Definitions-333fba1fbed54715b6b1c3b5133f0d4f) documentation.
* This is one of the 3 Booking models that I propose to create for New Pricing. You can read about the others [here](https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/Services-and-Revenue-modelling-1420446ff9c980118e0cfffa7c41f369), although I'll probably won't do them until New Dash is finalised on tech side.
* This current model should suffice to be able to understand which services are applied within a Booking. Notably you will see that this is not enough to compute revenue, as there's some placeholders in place. This is expected.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #20809
# Description
Goal of the PR is start modelising the Services and Revenue for New Dash/New Pricing. Be aware that this is a first model and it's not by all means the definitive nor complete version.
Changes:
* Services name normalisation: It's a bit painful because we usually had two names: 'MyService' and 'My Service'. The initial setup I built was considering the first, but in some new integrated tables it only has the second. So I just standardised everything to be in upper case and with spaces such as 'MY SERVICE'. Might make more sense later on. This affects many existing models.
* Compute a new Service Business Type field in `stg_core__product_service`: Main reason is that effectively Platform scope in New Pricing have business differences in the services types but this does not exist in the backend. I do it at staging level with a dedicated accepted values test to ensure any new update is captured and notified. You can read more about the business logic in this [Notion page](https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/All-Services-Definitions-333fba1fbed54715b6b1c3b5133f0d4f).
* Create a new model `int_core__booking_to_service`: this model joins the information of BookingViewToService with BookingView and Booking tables to retrieve a more consolidated version of what we will needed downstream for the future table of Booking Service Detail and the Aggregated version (not included in this PR). This table likely can be enriched in future PRs. At the moment it just contains the bare minimum fields needed for the lines/aggregated versions. (NB: Booking information is needed, for instance, for the services which unit price need to be applied for the number of nights of the booking)
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [X] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged. **stg_core__booking_view_to_service needs full refresh**
Related work items: #20809
# Description
Removes Address Validation within DWH.
Note that I keep the 2 reporting fields, nullified. These should be removed after the removal of these fields in PBI.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [NA] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [NA] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #23976
# Description
Removes other_sharing_platform_url field that will disappear from the backend in the release going out next week.
Apparently there's a dependency with a PBI report that uses core__unified_user table, so I just nullified the reporting field. The report is called users_dashboard, which AFAIK is not published anywhere. I wonder if this is one of the it-should-not-exist report. Waiting for tomorrow confirmation with Pablo.
Important note: Since this removes fields from staging, which is incremental, we need to trigger a full-refresh for this table. Otherwise execution will fail.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [NA] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [NA] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [X] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged. **Yes, please refer to my previous comment.**
Related work items: #23974
# Description
Modelises 2 new tables into staging:
* BookingView
* BookingViewToService
Ideally, we need the contents of BookingToService. This does not exist, so we will need to modelise it in intermediate. Current relationship is that 1) we know services applied to a booking view id (BookingViewToService ) 2) we know booking view id how it relates to booking (BookingView) 3) we can retrieve booking info as usual (Booking, etc)
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #23996
# Description
Changes data type of dates and timestamps of relevant fields in stg_hubspot__deals
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [X] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them.
- [NA] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #22689
