# Description
Fixes:
* There was a data quality issue in which active listings with bundles were showing more listings than the total active listings. This has been fixed, plus a bunch of tests have been added to make sure this does not happen again.
* There's a field that reaches the 63 character limit. I modified "paid" per "upgraded" which reduces this to intermediate model; however in reporting I need to keep as is to avoid breaking PBI. I did change the name of the field in the schema so tests/docs work well and explicitly mention this in the doc. This will need adaptation but can be done in the future.
* There was tons of dead code tagged as to be deleted that was not deleted, not sure why or when. Anyway this is dropped now. It's not used in PBI except for the fact that columns are dropped in the data model, so we might have a bit of down time to just remove these.
* Few fields were not displayed correctly in dbt docs.
What's new:
* New user categorisation as an alert-based system. This can be enhanced in the future but so far it covers hell of a lot of cases. This also includes data quality alerts (deal not in HS, or account defaults to MVP launch).
* MVP Launch date moved to project yaml since it's a very standard date.
# 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: #30407
# Description
We're getting Data Alerts triggered for Guest Journey payments with no id for the guest. This is because we have payments in the DWH for which we still don't have the related Verification Request in the DWH as well.
This PR changes a `LEFT JOIN` with the verification request table into an `INNER JOIN`, effectively making it impossible for a payment to not have user data if the VR is not there.
We increase data latency (the payment won't show up until the related VR is in the DWH) but we win consistency (no orphan payments without their full details).
# 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.
change left join to inner join
# Description
This PR creates a proper Booking Source in `int_core__bookings` table. This mostly refers to ensure that whenever we do data requests tickets on this regards we have a proper logic in place (as last time we had issues because of this). Logic follows Gus recommendation on applying:
```
case
when upper(coalesce(bsrc.booking_source, 'UNKNOWN')) = 'UNKNOWN'
then b.raw_booking_source
else bsrc.booking_source
end
```
where b. is Booking table and bsrc. is Booking Source table.
Things to note:
* A new `stg_core__booking_source` table is created, full-refreshed from the backend (less than 10 records)
* I added a unique test for `stg_core__booking` that was not in there. I don't document the rest of the model though.
* I remove the previous `id_booking_source` as it wasn't used and the logic in place should be far more accurate.
* I do NOT remove the existing `verification_request_booking_source`. I don't remember what's this but I see this is in use specially on Guest Insights (CSAT) and the legacy Truvi reporting (Bookings, PMS, etc.). Not the scope of this ticket to change it.
* I don't do further propagation, but potentially, this could be extended to New Dash Booking Summary as this source is being shown in the dashboard itself.
# 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: #30415
# Description
Change in model `int_core__accommodation_to_product_bundle` to remove effective dates and use original start and end date.
Updated downstream models as well
# 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.
data alert fix
Related work items: #30948
# Description
This PR directly removes test accounts, and not just flag them, from:
* `int_core__unified_user`, which means is also propagated to `int_core__user_host`.
It does so by creating a new, extremely simple model named: `int_core__user_test_account`
Then, `int_core__user_host` is inner joined with a small explanation comment on:
* `int_core__accommodation`
* `int_core__unique_accommodation_to_user`
* `int_core__bookings`
* `int_core__verification_requests`
* `int_core__payments`
Effectively removing test accounts.
Lastly, any existence and usage of the column `is_test_account` has been removed -> mostly on New Dash-related models.
# Checklist
**As discussed in the daily, I'll be playing around in prod with this PR**
- [ ] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [ ] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [ ] 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: #27319
# Description
Applies the new dedicated source of truth of "is this account fake" based on Claims. This removes the previous logic.
In terms of differences, not much because:
1. New logic applied in the backend is pretty much the same as we had with a few improvements
2. This exclusion is only applied for New Dash. I checked the number of test accounts in New Dash and these are 2, the same ones in the new logic and for the old (currently in production). So no real impact.
Impact will come at the moment to start handling exclusions for KPIs, but this will done later on dedicated PRs to assess impacts properly.
# 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: #27319
# Description
This PR adds a new version to `int_core__check_in_cover_users`. The new version respectes the public interface of V1, but changes the strategy to determine which users get included in the list. Instead of relying on their account configuration (v1), v2 simply looks at whether they had any VR created offering CIH in the past 30 days.
This approach changes the semantic of the model, but we deem the new one reasonable.
The motivation behind this change is to ensure this models (1) keeps working after the activation of the Guest Products FF and (2) stays simple. Trying to follow a strategy where we look at both old and new configs was deemed very complex and didn't add much value.
# 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: #30165
# Description
This PR prepares the existing `int_core__vr_check_in_cover` model for the activation of the Guest Products feature flag.
It creates a second logic path which identifies VRs that have CIH in them ~~through product bundles~~ through looking at `stg_core__verification_request_to_guest_product `, and unions it with the old stuff.
The new CTE only gets called after the FF gets activated. This is defined in a var that we will need to adjust depending on when do we really activate the FF.
Note that these items are still pending:
- update the var to the right value once Lawrence pulls the trigger.
- clarify what the hell happens with CIH being "pushed" or not to ALL old dash hosts. This PR currently assumes this will NOT happen. If it will happen, we will need to change things.
# 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: #30165
# Description
This PR does the following:
* Moves `core/int_core__booking_summary` to `cross/int_core__booking_summary`
* Renames the model `cross/int_core__booking_summary` to `cross/int_booking_summary`
* Same for schema entry. In the new schema, I just added in the description how to retrieve exclusively New Dash Bookings for usability purposes.
Then, it adapts any dependency on `int_core__booking_summary` to `int_booking_summary`
No additional changes - inclusion of Resolution Incidents data will come later in a different PR.
# 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: #30676
# Description
Adds new model in intermediate for new dash deal onboarding.
Adds additional fields in new dash tables for services completion at program level.
# 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: #30249
# Description
Removes 2 fields that no longer exist in the backend. Needed to do since I need to bring another table to sync_core.
No PBI dependencies found.
Fields are:
* flag_as_problem in SH User
* autonavigate in VerificationSet
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [ ] 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
- [X] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #30229
# Description
Integrates Guest Product Payments coming from the new flow of Guest Products.
This also removes few fields that will not be used or that do not make sense for GP specifically.
# 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: #30110
# Description
Guest Journey Payments to reporting. This aims to substitute core__verification_payments_v2, which is in use in the report of Guest Payments within Business Overview.
In order to avoid re-doing PBI work, I already set id_guest_product_payment as text for future usage. Similarly, superhog fees are called truvi fees.
# 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: #30024
# Description
Switches all models that still use int_core__verification_payments, except for the equivalent in reporting that needs a parallel GJ Payments to do a proper refactor.
# 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: #30024
# Description
Creates a first version of Guest Journey Payments. This model intends to replace int_core__verification_payments, and equivalent audit succeeds.
Additional changes:
* Removed decimal conversion in source models. In the GJ Payment model I avoid doing any currency conversion (thus one less join); however we need to have all decimals to exactly replicate the same computation. Peanuts, but still.
* Tagged as deprecated: int_core__verification_payments
* Added additional fields for reference in terms of IDs and specifically a handy is_status_paid for future joins.
* Added more robust test coverage and enhanced descriptions of fields.
# 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: #30024
# Description
New model for Verification Product Payments (Waiver, Deposit, Fee + not assigned set as Unknown).
This includes:
* Similar upper case and coalesce for payment status and verification product name
* Rename of paway_minimum_commission_local_curr as it was not clear (this needs to be handled separately)
* Waiver payaway stuff
* No tax handling
Audit passed with following considerations:
```
-- THIS GOES INTO AN AUDIT FILE
{% set old_query %}
select
*
from dwh_hybrid.intermediate.int_core__verification_product_payments
{% endset %}
{% set new_query %}
select
id_verification_to_payment,
id_payment,
is_refundable,
created_at_utc,
updated_at_utc,
payment_due_at_utc,
payment_due_date_utc,
payment_paid_at_utc,
payment_paid_date_utc,
payment_reference,
refund_due_at_utc,
refund_due_date_utc,
payment_refunded_at_utc,
payment_refunded_date_utc,
refund_payment_reference,
id_user_host,
id_guest_user as id_user_guest,
id_verification,
id_verification_request,
coalesce(
upper(verification_payment_type), 'UNKNOWN'
) as verification_product_name,
currency,
total_amount_in_txn_currency,
total_amount_in_gbp,
is_host_taking_waiver_risk,
payaway_percentage,
payaway_minimum_commission_local_curr as payaway_minimum_commission_in_txn_currency,
amount_due_to_host_in_txn_currency,
amount_due_to_host_in_gbp,
superhog_fee_in_txn_currency,
superhog_fee_in_gbp,
coalesce(upper(payment_status),'UNKNOWN') as payment_status,
notes
from dwh_hybrid.intermediate.int_core__verification_payments_v2
where (verification_payment_type != 'CheckInCover' or verification_payment_type is null)
{% endset %}
{{
audit_helper.compare_and_classify_query_results(
old_query,
new_query,
primary_key_columns=["id_verification_to_payment"],
columns=[
"id_verification_to_payment",
"id_payment",
"is_refundable",
"created_at_utc",
"updated_at_utc",
"payment_due_at_utc",
"payment_due_date_utc",
"payment_paid_at_utc",
"payment_paid_date_utc",
"payment_reference",
"refund_due_at_utc",
"refund_due_date_utc",
"payment_refunded_at_utc",
"payment_refunded_date_utc",
"refund_payment_reference",
"id_user_host",
"id_user_guest",
"id_verification",
"id_verification_request",
"verification_product_name",
"currency",
"total_amount_in_txn_currency",
"total_amount_in_gbp",
"is_host_taking_waiver_risk",
"payaway_percentage",
"payaway_minimum_commission_in_txn_currency",
"amount_due_to_host_in_txn_currency",
"amount_due_to_host_in_gbp",
"superhog_fee_in_txn_currency",
...
# Description
First model for Guest Product Payments. It only contains CIH from Verification Payments (so, the "old" CIH).
Some notes:
* It does not handle taxes computation.
* It converts guest product name to upper case, as the guest product tables are in upper case. I also apply it for payment status, as well as an UNKNOWN status for whenever it's null - we'd need to consider this for the rest of the refactor.
* Computation is placed within a CTE. This is intended since at some point this will include also Guest Product Payments that come from Guest Product related tables.
* Enhanced documentation with respect to Verification Payments V2.
Audit performed:
```
-- THIS GOES INTO AN AUDIT FILE
{% set old_query %}
select
*
from dwh_hybrid.intermediate.int_core__guest_product_payments
{% endset %}
{% set new_query %}
select
id_verification_to_payment,
id_payment,
is_refundable,
created_at_utc,
updated_at_utc,
payment_due_at_utc,
payment_due_date_utc,
payment_paid_at_utc,
payment_paid_date_utc,
payment_reference,
refund_due_at_utc,
refund_due_date_utc,
payment_refunded_at_utc,
payment_refunded_date_utc,
refund_payment_reference,
id_user_host,
id_guest_user as id_user_guest,
id_verification,
id_verification_request,
upper(verification_payment_type) as guest_product_name,
currency,
total_amount_in_txn_currency,
total_amount_in_gbp,
coalesce(upper(payment_status),'UNKNOWN') as payment_status,
notes
from dwh_hybrid.intermediate.int_core__verification_payments_v2
where verification_payment_type = 'CheckInCover'
{% endset %}
{{
audit_helper.compare_and_classify_query_results(
old_query,
new_query,
primary_key_columns=["id_verification_to_payment"],
columns=[
"id_verification_to_payment",
"id_payment",
"is_refundable",
"created_at_utc",
"updated_at_utc",
"payment_due_at_utc",
"payment_due_date_utc",
"payment_paid_at_utc",
"payment_paid_date_utc",
"payment_reference",
"refund_due_at_utc",
"refund_due_date_utc",
"payment_refunded_at_utc",
"payment_refunded_date_utc",
"refund_payment_reference",
"id_user_host",
"id_user_guest",
"id_verification",
"id_verification_request",
"guest_product_name",
"currency",
"total_amount_in_txn_currency",
"total_amount_in_gbp",
"payment_status",
"notes",
],
sample_limit=10000000,
)
}}
```
# 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 ...
# Description
Removes UNKNOWN in Service Business Type linked to 'BASIC DAMAGE DEPOSIT OR BASIC WAIVER'.
# 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.
Set option with basic waiver as deposit management
Related work items: #29649
