# 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
The model `stg_core__superhog_user` contained the fields `created_date_utc` and `updated_date_utc`, which were actually timestamps, not dates. This created issues a while ago in KPIs that were fixed by forcing a date conversion at `int_kpis` level, but the source issue remained unfixed.
This PR just creates the proper fields in staging, meaning:
* `created_at_utc` and `created_date_utc`
* `updated_at_utc` and `updated_date_utc`
And propagates the changes through all dependencies. On KPIs, it also removes the hardcoded date conversion since it's no longer needed. It also adds the different schema entries on which these fields were already defined. Note I didn't update the staging entry since there's no entry for the rest of the fields.
I recommend checking this PR in the commits order.
What I've tested:
* Unified User and User Host have plenty of dependencies that I've checked one by one, at each dependency layer by using dbt docs.
* Run `core__unified_user` and the full execution of +`mtd_aggregated_metrics`
What clearly will fail:
* There's the famous `Users_dashboard` PBI report that shouldn't exist that has a dependency with `core__unified_user`. This report will fail. But it does not exist. I'd like to drop it once and forever
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data. **See above**
- [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. **The staging model is incremental!**
Related work items: #23703
# Description
Removes Address Validation within DWH.
Note that I keep the 2 reporting fields, nullified. These should be removed after the removal of these fields in PBI.
# 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: #23976
# Description
Removes other_sharing_platform_url field that will disappear from the backend in the release going out next week.
Apparently there's a dependency with a PBI report that uses core__unified_user table, so I just nullified the reporting field. The report is called users_dashboard, which AFAIK is not published anywhere. I wonder if this is one of the it-should-not-exist report. Waiting for tomorrow confirmation with Pablo.
Important note: Since this removes fields from staging, which is incremental, we need to trigger a full-refresh for this table. Otherwise execution will fail.
# 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
- [X] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged. **Yes, please refer to my previous comment.**
Related work items: #23974
# Description
Decoms verification payments v1 version, and keeps v2 alive. The PBI of Guest Payments (Biz Overview) was already switched to V2 but the exposures was not reflecting it, so I changed this. Then I dropped all v1 models for verification payments and their entries in schema.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data. I did run the upstream dependencies on V2 and I don't see orphans in my dbt docs. However I did not fully run end-to-end all models up to PBI reports since there's other sources involved (Xero, etc).
- [X] 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: #22611
# Description
Fixes issue
# 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.
# Description
Update model core__verification_payments to include guest payment amounts without taxes
# 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.
# Description
This PR closes the ticket #20046
Changes:
* Removes temporary fields marked as legacy in `core__vr_check_in_cover`, after the changes in the 3 PBI Check-In Hero reports.
* Additionally, I modified the schema entry to comply with the current fields available in this model.
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data. *Checked in local changing the sources to localhost after dropping the fields.*
- [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. *N/A*
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models. *N/A*
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Remove temporary fields
Related work items: #20046
# 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
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
_Describe your motivation and changes here._
# 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.
# Description
Automates the new dash query through DWH. It's a first step towards enabling a very simple PBI reporting on new dash performance. Data is aggregated at user level with the main performance indicators that we're currently reporting. I added a few more informative fields from user side.
Changes:
* in intermediate, creation of `int_core__new_dash_user_overview`. It mainly uses the models in previous PRs to avoid crazy computations, since most of the logic has already been implemented. The only thing is that it's "hardcoded" (with variable) the categorisation of what is NOT a paid service.
* in reporting, creation of `core__new_dash_user_overview`. It just exposes the info from intermediate to reporting.
* added schema entries for intermediate/core and reporting/core, it's the same description for both cases.
# 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.
Reverts !2657
Related work items: #19570
# Description
Automates the new dash query through DWH. It's a first step towards enabling a very simple PBI reporting on new dash performance. Data is aggregated at user level with the main performance indicators that we're currently reporting. I added a few more informative fields from user side.
Changes:
* in intermediate, creation of `int_core__new_dash_user_overview`. It mainly uses the models in previous PRs to avoid crazy computations, since most of the logic has already been implemented. The only thing is that it's "hardcoded" (with variable) the categorisation of what is NOT a paid service.
* in reporting, creation of `core__new_dash_user_overview`. It just exposes the info from intermediate to reporting.
* added schema entries for intermediate/core and reporting/core, it's the same description for both cases.
# 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
