# 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
Creates a first version of Guest Journey Payments. This model intends to replace int_core__verification_payments, and equivalent audit succeeds.
Additional changes:
* Removed decimal conversion in source models. In the GJ Payment model I avoid doing any currency conversion (thus one less join); however we need to have all decimals to exactly replicate the same computation. Peanuts, but still.
* Tagged as deprecated: int_core__verification_payments
* Added additional fields for reference in terms of IDs and specifically a handy is_status_paid for future joins.
* Added more robust test coverage and enhanced descriptions of fields.
# 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
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
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
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
