# Description
Same PR as before, just adds a new commit that fixes my silly issue in prod. I owe some drinks :D
# 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: #19570
# Description
Adds accommodation to product bundle in intermediate. The source table is currently empty, because there's no product bundle different to Basic Screening applied into a listing yet.
Thus, it's possible that this modelisation needs to change in the future since not having data forces us to trust the business logic without a proper technical documentation.
# Checklist
- [ ] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data. **N/A no data**
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [ ] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them. **N/A no data**
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [X] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models. **N/A no data - but view should make the trick for the time being**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #19570
# Description
Fixed bookings test to include null for verification_request_booking_source
# 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: #20231
# Description
Creates a new view with the bookings that come from New Dash, linked to the Product Bundles. Extensive documentation added, please check it out and if something is not clear I'll modify it.
# 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. To be discussed. There's not huge data still so view looks ok to me. I guess, maybe, in the future, we will have a flag or similar in int_core__bookings to detect if a bookings comes from New Dash/New Pricing or not, but it's still early to decide. In any case this model is needed for immediate New Dash MVP reporting so I propose to keep it like this as a view and afterwards we can decide if it makes more sense to materialise it differently.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #19570
# Description
Adds accommodation to product bundle table from sync_core to staging. Note that this table still has no data because so far no listing has an associated product bundle.
Small change: removed in schema pending confirmation comments from Lou now that we've got an answer confirming it.
# Checklist
- [ ] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data: **N/A - there's no data :(**
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [ ] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them. **N/A - there's no data :(**
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models. **N/A - there's no data :(**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #19570
# Description
Working version of User Product Bundle in intermediate. I tried to be quite explicit in the documentation of the model and the choices made (both in the code itself and in the schema). There's some opinionated choices so feel free to challenge them.
There's a small change on the user_migration model, in which I didn't properly set a field into a date.
Note that there's some schema comments pending from Lou's validation. Up to you if we prefer to wait until resolved or we move forward - to me, it's not blocking.
# 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: #19570
# Description
First step towards reporting New Dash is to be able within DWH to know which hosts have been migrated.
In order to do so, and anticipating that there's going to be new phases in the future, I've created a `int_core__user_migration` model that reads from a configuration macro `get_new_dash_migration_phases_config` that will allow semi-automatic user retrieval in the future. This avoids nasty hardcoding within the model itself.
The information of whether a user is migrated, in which phase and when the phase was deployed is available at user level in the `int_core__user_host` table.
# 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. **-> I selected a view for this model since I don't believe we should materialse this data other than the user host table**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #19570
# Description
Changes:
* Separate 1) the internal naming of dimensions available within DWH vs. 2) the display of the dimensions in the reporting. Mainly it changes the "by_number_of_listings" to display "By # of Listings Booked in 12 Months". I edited the production macro since to me it's linked to when things are available for display.
* Add preceding zeros on the segmentation so it's ordered correctly. Before, the segment 21-60 was displayed before the 6-20.
* Also added some capital letters to the schema config of the reporting model :)
I attach a screenshot of how it looks in PBI in my local development branch to exemplify why this is "Beautification". Be aware that merging this also puts in production the dimensions.
# 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: #19325
# Description
Added address_validation to int_core__vr_check_in_cover for check in hero report in PBI
# 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: #17069
# Description
Silly change:
* Modifies `int_core__mtd_guest_payments_metrics` to apply the proper key on date, dimension and dimension_value.
* -> *The weird thing is that the previous dbt test I run worked well. Is it possible that the configuration in the schema file prevails on top of the model configuration? I thought it was the other way around...*
Main changes:
* Modifies `int_xero__mtd_invoicing_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings.
* `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields and tests
* Added the macro to retrieve the production dimension in `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking, Guest Journey, Deal, Accommodation and Guest Payments metrics. For reference, [here's the previous PR on Guest Payments](https://guardhog.visualstudio.com/Data/_git/data-dwh-dbt-project/pullrequest/2580).
This is the last PR on the source models for KPIs. Will follow: propagation + exposure
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
* **Important note**: this segmentation provides null values for all API-related KPIs. Makes sense, since the 4 deal id we have for APIs do NOT have, or have had, a listing linked to them. I'd say it's not a blocker.
- [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: #19325
# Description
Adds the possibility of considering as Hosts those users that come from Know Your Guest (KYG), after the discussion with Ben R yesterday. This uses the Claim table, specifically on any Kyg claim type:
- KygRegistrationSignUpType
- KygRegistrationIntegrationTypeName
- KygMvp
From what I see compiling the new vs. the previous version of this model and running into production to have up-to-date data, this increases the number of hosts in 8, from 2.608 to 2.616 so it's not a massive change in volumes.
I also modified the schema for this model to reflect the new logic.
# 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: #19513
# Description
Created address_validations in intermediate for check in hero
# 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: #17069
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_guest_payments_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields, tests and apply the proper naming (from guest revenue to guest payments). I also modified a silly naming that was referring to deals to refer to listings/accommodations, my bad.
Added the macro to retrieve the production dimension in `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking, Guest Journey, Deal and Accommodation metrics. For reference, [here's the previous PR on Accommodations](https://guardhog.visualstudio.com/Data/_git/data-dwh-dbt-project/pullrequest/2575?_a=overview).
# 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: #19325
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_accommodation_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields and tests. Hardcoded `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking, Guest Journey and Deal metrics. For reference, here's [the previous PR on Deal](https://guardhog.visualstudio.com/Data/_git/data-dwh-dbt-project/pullrequest/2534). I noticed that I mixed the schema tests of Deals and Accommodations, this PR should fix both.
# 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: #19325
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_deal_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields and tests. Hardcoded `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking and Guest Journey metrics. For reference, [here's the previous PR on GJ](https://guardhog.visualstudio.com/Data/_git/data-dwh-dbt-project/pullrequest/2533).
# 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: #19325
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_guest_journey_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields and tests. Hardcoded `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking metrics.
# 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: #19325
# Description
What's new:
- Creation of `get_kpi_dimensions`: new macro to have a single point of source of configuration for dimensions for the KPIs. It's a way to enforce global variables on-demand. I kind of like this approach and we could do it for Xero models as well :)
- Modification of `int_core__mtd_booking_metrics` and `int_dates_mtd_by_dimension`: removal of duplicated code within the dimension context. Uses Jinja code and applies different configurations depending on the dimension chosen. Still, different metrics are placed in different CTEs. I believe it might be possible to also configure metrics BUT at the cost of over-complexifying the macro logic, so I wouldn't go for it at this stage.
# 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: #19325
# Description
This is a first idea of how I'd like to add dimensionality in the KPIs for the mtd models. For the moment, I keep deal_id apart, so I just touch the "mtd" models, that so far only contained "global" metrics.
In this case I include the listing segmentation (0, 1-5, 6-20, etc) in the bookings. To do this, I created 2 new fields: dimension and dimension_values.
I also created a "master" table with `date` - `dimension` - `dimension_value` called `int_dates_mtd_by_dimension`
Important notes:
- I force a hardcode in `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics`. This is to not break production.
- You will notice how repetitive the code is starting to look. My intention with this PR is that we are happy with this approach on the naming, the strategy for joins, etc. If that's ok, next step is going to be doing macros on top. Think of the state of `int_core__mtd_booking_metrics` as the "compiled version" of the macro that should come afterwards.
# 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.
- [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: #19325
# Description
Adds 2 new tables:
- `int_core__user_role`: contains the relationship of a given user has a role.
- `int_core__user_host`: based on the previous table, it selects the users and main information from those users that are considered as hosts according to the role they have.
Note: I needed to change the test in stg. A user, generally, can have no role, one role, or multiple roles. Thus we cannot propagate this information in the unified_user model.
# 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: #19513
# Description
I modified the model of duplicated_bookings, I saw it had some errors and data that was not being used
# 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: #18875
This PR creates a new model int_core__mtd_accommodation_segmentation that provides the customer segments based on listing activity:
- 0
- 1-5
- 6-20
- 21-60
- 61+
For end of April 2024, the volume distribution on number of deals and total listings booked is:
For information, I estimate that around 3% of listings with bookings are missed, according to the data displayed in the KPIs for 30th April 2024. This is because we enforce deal-based categorisation (same happens with the deal view, anyway)
Related work items: #19325
After discussion with Pablo on the fact that Deposits are only with status "Paid" for a given time before they get Cancelled or Refunded, we just believe it's best to remove the Deposits amount from the Guest Payments metric. In any case, this does not represent a Revenue source... This was discovered while doing the data quality assessment for revenue figures ([here](https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/Data-quality-assessment-DWH-vs-Finance-revenue-figures-6e3d6b75cdd4463687de899da8aab6fb))
Before, `total_guest_payments_in_gbp` was a standalone metric that computed any payment by the guest with status paid. We were computing revenue based on the `total_guest_income_in_gbp`, which mainly was the sum of waiver payments, deposit fees (not deposit itself!) and check in hero fees.
Mainly what I did is:
- remove the existing `total_guest_payments_in_gbp` in the source models (int_core__xxx_guest_payments_xxx)
- rename the already existing `total_guest_income_in_gbp` to `total_guest_payments_in_gbp`
Related work items: #18787, #18914
Small refactor to follow up on last week's PR. We removed from the Guest Revenue models the host-takes-waiver aspect, thus these models are now only depending from Core. We just need to migrate it from cross to core.
One small detail as well, since we do not take into account at these models level the host-takes-waiver, technically, I would not call these models revenue but rather Guest Payments. This is why I also took the opportunity to apply this name.
Changes:
- `int_monthly_guest_revenue_by_deal` is now `int_core__monthly_guest_payments_history_by_deal`, and the location has changed from `intermediate.cross` to `intermediate.core`
- `int_mtd_guest_revenue_metrics` is now `int_core__mtd_guest_payments_metrics`, and the location has changed from `intermediate.cross` to `intermediate.core`
- Schema changes, moving these 2 models' documentation with the new naming from Cross to Core
- Provide continuity in following dependants: `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` and `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` now read from the 2 new models respectively. Additionally, the model alias has changed from `guest_revenue` to `guest_payments` to keep consistency.
This PR does not expose new metrics, but should keep the existing ones unaffected.
Related work items: #18914
This PR computes KPIs for Billable Bookings for both views (Global, by deal id)
It's the 1st version, mainly because numbers are not fully in-line with Jamie's export and I'd like to understand why. It uses booking_charge_events, as suggested by Pablo. In the meantime, I'm debugging the differences based on the invoicing export tool that provides Finance first rough numbers before amendment.
In any case, it can be used for a first rough idea.
Related work items: #18111
