# Description
This PR modifies the V2 of `int_core__verification_payments` to make sure that taxes are not computed for waivers where the host takes the risk (in line with our guest taxes guidelines: https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/Guest-Services-Taxes-How-to-calculate-a5ab4c049d61427fafab669dbbffb3a2?pvs=4#323e230365ed496cad6a65b5659895ea).
The PR changes the intermediate column `is_service_subject_to_vat`, making it `false` in the cases where there was no active payaway plan during the month where the payment was generated. This cascades in the main body of the model, because if `is_service_subject_to_vat` is `false`, then the tax amounts get turned into zero.
# 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.
add logic
Related work items: #20043
# Description
Update mtd_aggregated_metrics guest payments to be tax-exclusive
# 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.
Update mtd_aggregated_metrics guest payments to be tax-exclusive
Related work items: #20045
# Description
This PR propagates tax exclusive check in hero payments for the reporting of Check in Hero.
Additionally, it keeps propagating the amounts with tax inclusiveness in case, at some point, we need them. These are with the new naming convention.
In order not to break anything, the previous amounts are duplicated and aliased in reporting.
Lastly, I spent some time adding some clarifications and documenting payments set to currency and the dependant used 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: #20046
# Description
Fixing logic to ensure priority selection of claims when user satisfies multiple claim conditions.
It adds a new parameter that forcefully prioritises the selection of the date value for a certain claim over the others. If the value is repeated among claims, it will select the earliest 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: #20773
# Description
This PR fixes the New Dash migration issue that happened on September 10th 2024. In this migration, users were directly assigned the claim of KygMvp that does not contain a date value. We were using a default hardcode of the first MVP migration, thus in DWH all users have been considered to be migrated late July instead of splitting the first 22 in late July and the ~200 others in September.
The issue lies in the fact that users have configured a ProductBundle and can have Bookings with ProductBundle BEFORE the migration date, which greatly breaks the logic of a migration monitoring.
Changes:
* New migration phase added based on the claim MvpMigratedUser, that Ben created on Friday 13th
* Adaptation of the code in int_core__user_migration to detect if the claim_value (a text field) has a date or not. If so, use that date as long as it's equal or greater than the deployment date, if not use the deployment date. If the claim does not contain a date, use the deployment date (this is the case for the first true 22 migrated users)
I checked that volumes now look correct with this fix.
# 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: #20773
# Description
Changes (only in intermediate):
* Applies sqlfmt in KPIs source models (for some of them it was already applied). Specifically, the 3 Core models ONLY contains formatting changes
* Adds `main_deal_name` and `main_billing_country_iso_3_per_deal` in `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`
* Adds the 2 new fields in the schema entry of `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`, including the dbt test not null in the deal name.
# 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: #18911, #19083
# Description
This PR is a pure refactor (as in, doesn't change the output of the model at all).
The only purpose of the changes in this PR is to improve the performance on the model. The strategy to achieve this has been to inline the basic CTEs of the model (inline=replace references to the CTE with direct `ref` inside the model).
This works because it breaks an optimization fence.
# 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: #20835
# Description
Before deploying KPIs by Billing Country, we spotted some issues that were basically increases on the volumes of any metric on the by billing country dimension that was based on Deal. This means, `int_core__mtd_deal_metrics` and `int_xero__mtd_invoicing_metrics`.
This PR changes the following:
* Now the 2 abovementioned models depend on the `int_core__deal` model, instead of `int_core__user_host` (thus removing duplicated stuff)
* Now all models use the main billing country at deal level, instead of doing it so at host level. The reason is that some small amount of hosts that share the same deal can have a different billing country. To avoid weird stuff, everything points to this simplification - that in general, it's not a massive change in the output.
* In order to do so easily, the 3 main billing country per deal fields have been propagated to `int_core__user_host`
To exemplify the solution, find here a snapshot of the differences in behavior:
```
select
dimension,
sum(deals_booked_in_month) as deals_booked_1,
sum(deals_booked_in_6_months) as deals_booked_6,
sum(deals_booked_in_12_months) as deals_booked_12,
sum(total_revenue_in_gbp) as total_revenue,
sum(xero_operator_net_fees_in_gbp) as operator_revenue,
sum(xero_booking_net_fees_in_gbp) as booking_fees,
sum(xero_listing_net_fees_in_gbp) as listing_fees,
sum(xero_verification_net_fees_in_gbp) as verification_fees,
sum(total_guest_revenue_in_gbp) as guest_revenue,
sum(xero_waiver_paid_back_to_host_in_gbp) as waiver_paid_back_to_hosts,
sum(waiver_net_fees_in_gbp) as waiver_net_fees
from intermediate.int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics
where date in ('2024-01-31')
group by 1
order by 1
```
Production:
vs.
Local:
Keep in mind that still Global dimension can be greater than any other dimension aggregated since not all users have a deal. Mismatches between the other 2 dimensions might be linked to the dump.
Commits are meaningful and help navigate in the changes.
# 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: #20823
# Description
Creates a new master table containing the Deals. At this stage, the information is quite limited - I only included those fields that are useful for fixing the KPIs issues. To be enriched later on.
# Checklist
- [ ] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data. **Question here. Do I need to have the models materialised in local to see the dependants on DBT Docs? I didn't see any uses of the previous model int_core__deal_id_master_list.**
- [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: #20822
