# Description
New model that aggregates in a monthly basis the information from Xero sales. The aggregation is done by several categories, most of them to be included as filters in PBI. Metrics represent the amount without taxes in: 1) the current month, 2) the previous month, 3) twelve months ago, 4) current year YTD (fiscal year) and 5) previous year YTD (fiscal year).
It also propagates the model to 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.
- [X] I have checked for DRY opportunities with other models and docs.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models. **I was hesitating between table or view. Table should speed up tests, but I intend to create a reporting table with a similar structure so probably a bit of waste of space. Anyway, not a big deal now**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #26618
# Description
This PR reworks the Financial Aggregations based on Nathan's requirements, that can be found in an Excel attached to the board ticket.
Main changes:
- Accounting seed now contains 3 financial aggregations as requested by Finance
- These 3 aggregations are propagated up to reporting. This effectively breaks a WIP report - but it's WIP, not in prod, so it's not a big deal
# 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. **Need to create the seed manually**
Related work items: #26618
# Description
Creates a seed to define how to aggregate the different revenue/cost sources, at account code level.
This is propagated to the sales denom mart in intermediate.
This is not complete, but should be a good starting point and it enables moving forward with a couple of tickets regarding KPIs revenue refactor and further Finance reporting, by just keeping a single source of truth. It's mostly focusing on the Don't Repeat Yourself
# 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.
First version of accounting aggregations - not complete
Related work items: #26618
# Description
Cleans Xero models for the old KPIs flow, temporary tests and schema entries
# 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: #23760
# Description
Sets up warning for KPIs models that will be deprecated, which are:
* 13 in core
* 2 in xero
* 5 in cross
I will keep alive the cross models that handle the final aggregations for Main KPIs for the time being, as well as the newly created Churn model that has a dependency on the monthly by deal to be filled into the mtd flow. I think handling exposure logic for Main KPIs could be a separated migration.
In other words, this is already quite a bit to migrate.
# Checklist
**I just checked that dbt compiles correctly**
- [NA] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [NA] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [NA] 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: #23268
# 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
Adds Billing Country dimension in KPIs, but does not expose them to reporting yet.
Silly thing, based on the macros I built, I cannot make incremental changes unless changing all models. This will need to be adapted, happy to hear your thoughts on how we do it.
Additionally, I have lack of performance of the model `mtd_guest_payments_metrics`. It takes around 5 min to execute, but technically the end-to-end runs in one shoot without breaking.
It's a complex PR because it changes many files, but you will see that:
* It mostly changes the join conditions for the dimensions or the schema tests,
* I tried to be very careful and add things step-by-step in the commits.
Goal is NOT to complete the PR yet until we see how we can improve performance. I can say though that data end-to-end looks ok to me, but would benefit from checking with production data for the new dimension
Update 30th Aug
* Added a new commit that includes `id_user_host` in `int_core__verification_payments`. Happy to discuss if it makes sense or not. But it changes the execution from ~600 sec to ~6 sec because it avoids a massive repeated join with `verification_requests`.
# 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 check because of performance issues**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #19082
# 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
Exposes the following metrics:
1. Invoiced Booking Fees
1. Invoiced Listing Fees
1. Invoiced Verification Fees
1. Invoiced Guesty Fees
1. Invoiced E-Deposit Fees
1. Deposit Fees
1. Waiver Amount Paid by Guests
1. Waiver Amount Paid back to Hosts
1. Check-In Hero Amount Paid by Guests
This PR is only for Global metrics, the one by deal id will follow separately.
Keep in mind that merging this PR will make the data appear in the report.
Related work items: #18914
This PR exposes the following metrics to the Main KPIs business overview report, for both Global + By Deal view:
- Total Revenue
- Total Revenue per Booking Created
- Total Revenue per Guest Journey Created
- Total Revenue per Deals Booked in Month (does not apply on the by deal view)
- Total Revenue per Listings Booked in Month
- Invoiced Operator Revenue
- Host Resolution Payment Count
- Host Resolution Amount Paid
Keep in mind Global view will be displaying these metrics once this is merged. I also changed a bit the order of the metric display.
Note that Billable Bookings are not included.
I recommend to review by 1) checking the first commit. This is almost the same as the previous abandoned PR that @<Joaquin Ossa> you already checked on Tuesday. I added a second commit, to be checked later, which basically fixes some stupid issues that if one of the source of revenue is null, then total revenue is null. This is specially critical for the view by deal, since most of them do not have revenue from APIs - thus all total revenue figures were null...
Related work items: #18108, #18109, #18110, #18719
Computing and propagating APIs revenue metrics.
I retrieved the revenues linked to Guesty and e-deposits. The sum of those are considered the total API revenue at this stage.
These 3 metrics are available in upper layers (not exposed yet to the report), just to fix the total revenue computation, which now includes APIs revenue
Related work items: #18719
Discussing with Jamie on how I can retrieve the information from Xero for E-deposit and Guesty, he told me that these go to a dedicated account. Since these are invoiced, they do not go to the bank transactions.
Specifically:
- 220 - E-Deposit Fees
- 219 - Guesty Fees
- 221 - Guesty Administration fee
After debugging the data (and getting confirmation from Jamie that indeed we were having invoices on e-deposit), I see that this info is available in the original json from staging. This PR aims just to retrieve these 3 fields:
- id_account
- account_code
- account_name
This will be used later on to retrieve the rest of API KPIs
Related work items: #18719
This PR aims to propagate the invoicing metrics through the DWH. It does not expose them to users, yet.
This PR effectively computes the following metrics, for both the "global" view (MTD) and the "by deal" view (by_deal):
- Invoiced Operator Revenue
- Host Resolution Count of Payments
- Host Resolution Amount Paid
With these 3 new metrics, we're able to combine them with the existing ones to compute:
- Total Revenue
- Total Revenue per Booking Created
- Total Revenue per Guest Journey Created
- Total Revenue per Deal Booked in Month
- Total Revenue per Listings Booked in Month
You'll also note that I've included standalone metrics for booking fees, listing fees, verification fees and waiver payments. This will not be exposed in this batch 2, but based on the conversation with Finance, will clearly make it for batch 3. I just find it easier to add it now, since it's straight forward.
Main changes:
- `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` now computes all the above mentioned metrics
- `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` now computes all the above mentioned metrics, except Total Revenue per Deal Booked in Month since it does not make sense for the deal view. Additionally, I took the opportunity to include the missing metrics from listings (accommodations). The goal is not necessarily to display them, but at least compute it on our side.
Additional changes:
- In `int_xero__mtd_invoicing_metrics` and `int_xero__monthly_invoicing_history_by_deal`, there's a very silly name change to keep the same convention for fees: from `xero_operator_net_fees` to `xero_operator_net_fees_in_gbp`
- I applied additional changes in `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` with the goal to keep the same format as we have in `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics`, this meaning:
1 - explicit alias naming (from `gj` to `guest_journeys`)
2 - keep a similar arrangement of metrics, and clearly separate scopes depending on the metric type
3 - Re-apply autoformatting
Related work items: #18108, #18109, #18110
This PR creates 2 new models on intermediate, xero:
- int_xero__mtd_invoicing_metrics (global view)
- int_xero__monthly_invoicing_history_by_deal (by deal view)
This allows for the computation of host metrics (operators), as well as host resolution payments. This will enable in the future to compute total revenue and weighted revenue metrics.
The data displayed from the previous months in the mtd_invoicing_metrics is consistent with 1) revenue figures displayed in business overview for Host tab, as well as Guest tab for Waiver Payments; and 2) host payment figures displayed in the accounting reports.
**Note 1**: the variables at this stage are reused in these models, as well as many other Xero models. We still need to handle the refactor ticket on Xero related reports. This is not under the scope of this PR.
**Note 2**: we noticed that the strategy for mtd models to do a double year, month extraction join is badly performant. Actually, resolution payments subquery was not performing at all with this logic. So it has been changed to a date_trunc('month', related_date)::date = d.first_day_month strategy which works much faster. I'll add a standalone PR to refactor the remaining mtd models separately later
Related work items: #18108, #18110
