# 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:
* Creation of a deal-based model that contains when a "deal has appeared in new dash". This is tricky because a Deal can still have multiple users, thus it needs to be attributed to a date. I've chosen the first user appearance for the rest of the metrics.
* Adaptation of dimension deals in KPIs to include a client type, that indicates if the deal is from APIs or not (Platform, i.e., Dashboard).
* Xero metrics by Business Scope. This is the previous "dash source" that I need to change in the previously worked models. I decided to include APIs in the segmentation since in most cases we distinguish old dash from new dash by just "anything that is not in new dash". This is very wrong for invoicing metrics, in which we have APIs. So this actually properly computes a client segmentation by scope.
Note that I'll need to handle the monthly/mtd metrics/agg for these 2 metric models (Resolutions + Invoiced revenue) separately.
# 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
# Description
Small PR to fix stuff
# 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.
Fixes
Related work items: #27096
# Description
Added booking fees for CIH requests and new model of aggregated monthly fee per user
# 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: #26158
# Description
Context: I'm intending to work on Account Managers reporting, that mostly will include reporting at Deal level the Resolutions Payouts as well as the new Retained metrics. While checking the great increase on Resolutions Payouts for October 2024:
I decided to take a quick look into the main players... and surprise surprise we have Guesty:
So Guesty represents 37k over the 73K of October. 50%. Not bad.
The main issue is that we've been aware for months now (since Churn efforts, mostly) that we're not reporting in KPIs those deals that are NOT created in Core. Most notably, API deals which includes... well, Guesty. So creating this kind of in-depth Account Managers improvement without reporting Guesty I think it would be very misleading. Note that the overall figures (Global dimension) are still accurate, though.
What's new:
* A new model named `int_kpis__dimension_deals` that basically retrieves Deals from both Core (as before) and Hubspot. It combines information from both and mostly assumes Hubspot as a better source of information than Core - although we do not have the Main Billing Country there afaik.
* Propagates changes, mostly in the monthly by deal view of Main KPIs. Here I confirm that now Guesty appears, and it only has metrics that come from Xero (APIs Revenue, Total Revenue, Resolutions, etc)
# 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: #25829
# 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
Rename changes and adding some necessary fields like `id_currency` to some S&P models
# 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.
Feedback on current process
Related work items: #25360
# Description
Propagates account type to intermediate. Also, adds minimal documentation to `int_core__unified_user`.
There's only 54 test accounts in Unified User and 49 that are considered as User Hosts. So it's not, by all means, an extensive list of test accounts...
There's a mismatch between the `created_date_utc` and `updated_date_utc` that these are timestamps. There's another ticket in the backlog to handle this alongside the dependency, so it's not included here.
# 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: #18944
# Description
Following a communication from Gus, the following fields in Booking table are going to be removed:
* StagingHostBookingId
* AdditionalGuests
This PR aims to remove DWH dependencies.
# 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, Booking table in staging is incremental**
Related work items: #25405
