# Description
Reporting version of New Dash Onboarding
It also adds a missing description of a field.
It also adapts the logic for Hubspot Onboarding Owner, after a discussion with Alex. It still does not cover 100% of the cases but he's investigating the rest.
# 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
After a discussion with Nathan, the invoicing cycle has again been reduced by quite a few days.
We agreed to move the cap from 20th to 12th of the following month.
# 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: #30147
# 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
Remove old models:
- `monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`
- `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`
# Checklist
- [ ] 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.
Remove old models
Related work items: #29672
# Description
Updates deprecation dates to 23rd May.
Updates exposure with new Account Growth report
# Checklist
- [X] Project compiles
Related work items: #29374
# Description
Propagates the new account growth model to reporting.
Rounds and a couple of additional fields are handled here for PBI purposes.
# 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: #29374
# Description
Removes exposures of monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal in Main KPIs
Project compiles.
# Checklist
N/A
Related work items: #29204
# Description
After checking the current growth score model... I think I will decommission it for something simpler.
This PR introduces a new growth score purely based on Created Bookings, thus it won't work for API deals. For API deals I will do a similar Total Revenue comparison separately.
This uses the projected bookings at the end of the month, thus this is updated in a daily basis and it's timely.
# 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: #29374
# Description
Small changes to exclude "irrelevant" data. All data is relevant I guess but this is less.
* Exclude churned accounts after 3 months.
* Exclude any data after 24 months.
# 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: #28998
# Description
Added `has_upgraded_screening_services_business_type`
So in the report we can filter by this because currently all bookings should have `has_screening_services_business_type` with BASIC SCREENING
# 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.
upgraded screening
Related work items: #28640
# Description
Creates a new model for reporting. It includes any relevant metric at Deal level in a similar format as we do for `mtd_aggregated_metrics`. Additionally, there's few Deal attributes - from Hubspot, segmentations, lifecycles, etc.
In order to dynamically choose which metrics are relevant on a Deal level, I modified the configuration in `int_mtd_aggregated_metrics` so the extraction is under control.
# 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. **Worth discussing the possibilities to include indexes in the future**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #28998
# Description
To be able to compute By Deal KPIs similarly as we do for Main KPIs we need to propagate the "By Deal" dimension first in intermediate. This does not impact reporting since there's a macro that already cuts the dimensions to be displayed, but I modified the name so it's clearer.
Changes:
* In `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics`, I added a new `dimension_list`. This is applied to all initial CTEs that filter by dimension. Note that I added here the `by_deal` dimension.
* Modified the name of `get_kpi_dimensions_for_production` to `get_main_kpis_dimensions_for_production`. Now it's more explicit that this is the configuration for Main KPIs reporting. This affects both `business_kpis_configuration` and it's usage in `mtd_aggregated_metrics`.
* Modified the tests in `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` and `int_mtd_aggregated_metrics` to include the new dimension `by_deal`.
* It seems by adding this now autoformatting works again on this model! I'll tag all cases that are just because of autoformatting.
MD5 trick has been applied in `reporting.mtd_aggregated_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: #28998
# Description
Added current deal lifecycle to new dash 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.
- [ ] 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.
Added current deal lifecycle to new dash overview
Related work items: #28873
# Description
I noticed this morning that after the name changes some exclusions have been messed up.
I think is about time we handle this properly. Following what we did for `ytd_mtd_aggregated_main_metrics_overview`, I apply the same logic: the metric display configuration is handled for each metric in the configuration rather than by some crazy-complex-name-logic.
I also took the opportunity to make Host Resolutions timely after a discussion with Chloe yesterday. Finance handles resolutions payments twice a week, and the "delay" in time is mostly coming from Resolutions accepting to pay someone vs. Finance handling the payment. In any case we're talking about a few days maximum difference, which I believe it's 1) process-related freshness, rather than data-related and 2) much better to have visibility in a timely manner rather than waiting for the 20th on next month.
# 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. **Logic is common among YTD and MTD models. At some moment this can be improved**
- [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: #28560
# Description
Main Changes:
* Computes the total booking fees in `int_kpis__metric_daily_invoiced_revenue`
* Propagates within KPIs, including schema and tests
* Propagates within cross in both "by deal" and "by dimension/global"
* Propagates to main kpis tests
Small fix:
* In `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics`, manual formatting because sqlfmt is broken on this 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: #28560
# Description
Added `id_deal` to edeposit models for Invoice reporting
# 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
- [x] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Adding id_deal
Related work items: #28239
# Description
Adding `id_deal` to API models in Check in Cover and Screen & Protect
# 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: #28239
# Description
This fixes the duplication error when the same deal has more than one contact. Impact was not massive, it just affected because of the Home to Host account and this has happened during the past week. There were other cases that contained duplicates but these were not invoiced so it didn't affect the total sum.
Changes:
* Contacts now has a boolean field indicating if a deal exists.
* Contacts now has a boolean field indicating if that contact has a deal informed and it's the last updated one. This is opinionated - it could have been done with creation, for instance.
* Sales monthly trends forces the last updated contact to be true.
* Improved robustness by adding tests.
Note that modifying the logic in intermediate on `int_xero__sales_monthly_trends` by changing `id_deal` per `id_contact` would not have worked - we need to do this compute by deal to ensure that any invoicing is reported MoM and YTD.
# 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: #28576
# Description
Booking fees is widely used with different meanings, for old dash, for new dash, for both, etc. This is painful. First step to align on a proper naming is ensure that what we report in Main KPIs is clearly stated, which in this case, Booking Fees are now called Old Dashboard Booking Fees.
Changes:
* Modify `stg_seed__accounting_aggregations` seed to rename Booking Fees to Old Dashboard Booking Fees. This is for us to clarify. This is only applied for KPIs compute. I also added an empty space that I mistakenly forgot in the past for `financial_l3_aggregation`.
* Modify KPIs source, i.e., `int_kpis__metric_daily_invoiced_revenue`. Here I forcefully modify the name of the field to `xero_old_dashboard_booking_net_fees_in_gbp`.
* Propagate changes of downstream usages of `xero_booking_net_fees_in_gbp` to `xero_old_dashboard_booking_net_fees_in_gbp`. This affects all models, including the reporting model. On this one we still have both names to avoid breaking it. I will need to modify the data glossary in PBI anyway so I'll do this change as well.
* Modify displayed metric name from Booking Fees Revenue to Old Dashboard Booking Fees Revenue.
* Modify schema so it reflects the proper names, descriptions, and tests.
* Ensure outlier and completion tests still work after this change.
I confirm the field `xero_booking_net_fees_in_gbp` does not exist anymore in the rest of DWH after these changes, except for the abovementioned comment on the reporting line.
# 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: #28560
