# 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
# Description
Creates a master table for guest products in intermediate. It just gathers information on the name and the latest display name, as well as a couple of additional time fields.
I opted for "latest" rather than "current" because technically Guest Products can be enabled and disabled, and I believe current name would be weird if the product is disabled. Anyway. Next step will be actually creating a master table on guest product configuration, that will handle this disable logic and so on.
# 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: #28513
# Description
After the sync this morning in Core in Airbyte, we have some issues in SH User. This attempts to remove no longer existing fields, namely:
- id_airbnb
- airbnb_url
- platform_comms_recipient
# 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: #28502
# Description
Very silly mistake - affects many reports!
@<Joaquin Ossa> let me know if there's other use cases. I believe that's all of the computations, but you have this more fresh than me.
# 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: #28196
# Description
Added booking id to payments model to upgrade payments report
# 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 booking id to payments model
Related work items: #27771
# Description
Changes:
* Tags services to be billed (invoiced to host) in the staging models of product_service and protection_plan
* Propagates into booking_service_detail master table. This also computes billable dates.
* Propagates into booking_summary master table. This has the final determination of a booking being billable or not, and when the first and last billing should occur.
# 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: #27619
# Description
New Invoice model for S&P
Quite a dense model, it needs to consider some different situations for the different Protection types, verification status and if the user has the `is_protected` flag active for it's bookings.
I leave the documentation for support to better clarify all the possible scenarios and a screenshot of how it is currently looking the model's result.
There are a couple of rename changes on other models, nothing big.
If there are any inquiries let me know.
https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/Invoice-Screen-Protect-1610446ff9c980f88de6d6293b4fab03?pvs=4
# 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: #25360
# Description
Changes:
* **Main change:** exclusion of KYG lite users of the segmentation of Business Scope. These are "freemium" users, kind of demo users, that shouldn't have any real impact in terms of revenue. These are in New Dash, but do not have a deal. The problem is that we don't want to consider them as New Dash, but the current condition was making them appear as Old Dash. This PR fixes this by handling the logic for backend related models. Note that Xero remains unaffected - this is based on Deal, and these users do not have Deal.
* Small data quality fix I noticed while debugging KYG lite cases. It's better to use the "is upgraded service" from the staging original tables rather than the one with the prices. If a user does not have a currency (which can be the case for KYG lite users), then the coalesce would tag any service as not upgraded, which is not true.
# 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: #27356
