# Description
- Bugfix on nullif then 0 - it was applied to the numerator of Revenue computation, which made MoM growth be considered as null and propagated as 0 in the scores, which is not true.
- Bugfix on cast as numeric - this was introduced because PBI didn't read well some decimal figures when loading the data. However this impacted somehow in the score by some weird magic I don't understand. I just replace the casts by rounds, that are applied after the computation of the scores, and PBI seems happy with it.
# 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.
- [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: #22635
# Description
Main changes:
* Includes 4 new fields to take into account 12 month created bookings. Specifically:
`deal_created_bookings_12_months_window`
`global_created_bookings_12_months_window`
`deal_contribution_share_to_global_created_bookings`
`deal_contribution_rank_to_global_created_bookings`
This also renames a CTE, that was previously stating it was revenue. Same for inline comments. Also includes documentation of this fields.
* Score range modification: Now, growth scores are multiplied by 100 and weighted score by 1000. This makes it easier to display and understand (Growth cannot be less than -100, threshold value is now -1, 0 and 1).
I checked that the content already in production has not change (ex: we still have the same 15 top losers for September).
# 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.
- [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: #22635
# Description
Main changes:
- Creation of `int_monthly_churn_metrics` model. This follows a similar approach as for mtd models, with jinja loops to aggregate the metrics at different dimensions. This reads from the previous monthly model, thus creating a dependency on Global KPIs with By Deal KPIs.
- Adds the 6 metrics in the main aggregated model of Global KPIs `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics`. It doesn't necessarily mean that the 6 metrics will be made available in the report.
This does NOT display these metrics in the report, and won't be done until deal lifecycle is enriched to consider hubspot offboarding in the state "05-Churning".
# 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: #22691
# Description
This PR creates a new model that depends on int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal. The idea is that this is used for Churn computation (Booking Churn, Revenue Churn, Listing Churn) later on.
The idea is relatively simple. Measure how much a Deal has been contributing to a Global amount (sum of metric for all deals) over the preceding period of 12 months. You will notice that there's 2 computations, the "additive" and the "average" one. This is because we still need to align with Matt/Suzannah on which approach makes more sense, but we need data for it. I'm not sure the namings are good though so happy to see your suggestions.
You will also notice that there's no filter by deal_lifecycle_state = '06-Churning'. This will be done in a separated model, whenever we attribute this model to the mtd computation. The reason is simple - this model stays at deal level, thus meaning we can do the dimension aggregation and even a lifecycle aggregation if needed, depending on the needs.
Be aware that this effectively means that MTD KPIs models will depend on the "monthly by deal" models. This has some cons in terms of dependency management but cannot be overcome since we the metric total revenue depends on many subsets. In essence, I don't see another way of doing it unless doing a massive KPIs refactor. I prefer to wait until the Product KPIs discussions are finished and then we see how we approach it.
# 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: #22691
# Description
Copies intermediate to reporting for growth score by deal. Schema is copy-paste from intermediate changing the model's name.
# 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.
- [NA] 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: #22635
# Description
Creates a model to identify deal growth based on YoY performance of Created Bookings, YoY performance of Listings Booked in Month and one month shifted YoY performance of Revenue.
Also added weighted score to account for revenue size.
# 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. **Probably something can be done here, sorry I've not checked.**
- [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: #22635
# Description
Main changes:
* Guest revenue is now guest payments. PBI uses Guest revenue, so alias is changed at reporting level, while it uses guest_payments_in_gbp field.
* Removal of Waiver Amount Paid back to Host to Guest revenue and Total revenue.
# 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: #22688
# Description
Adapts revenue figures in Main KPIs - MTD scope or global view. This includes MTD, Monthly Overview, Global Evolution over Time, Detail by Category. In essence, everything that is not by deal.
The changes are mainly 2:
* Remove the line that deducts the `Waiver Amount Paid Back to Hosts` in all metrics except the `Waiver Net Fees`. This effectively means that the previous `Guest Revenue` = `Guest Payments`, thus I dropped all 3 `Guest Payments` metrics.
* Do a renaming at metric display level, but not in the code. This means that I remove the computation of `guest_revenue_in_gbp` for instance and keep `guest_payments_in_gbp`, and apply the renaming later on, since the modelisation already accounts for defining metric names differently from those of the fields. For the rest of metrics, I revised all metrics name and did changes based on the [whiteboard](https://whiteboard.office.com/me/whiteboards/p/c3BvOmh0dHBzOi8vZ3VhcmRob2ctbXkuc2hhcmVwb2ludC5jb20vcGVyc29uYWwvcGFibG9fbWFydGluX3N1cGVyaG9nX2NvbQ%3d%3d/b!T2D3opQuBECSDnhuFZrUacFu3TxvSvdIsnI4Dxsh2IuaB1AigbciRqkqte61I4wz/01H5SI4J4L7HTPJGUT7JGYKTOSQYYWACXU). I also changed the dedicated data tests in Main KPIs to ensure it's working. I also changed the exclusion logic in reporting based on the name of the metric to not display metrics that depend on the invoicing cycle unless it's 2 months ago or before.
To keep in mind:
* Merging this will automatically display the new figures/naming in production. Might be wise to communicate to stakeholders since some key metrics (namely, Guest Revenue / Total Revenue) will change the meaning.
* We also need to do these changes in the metrics by deal part of the computation. I'd do first the removal of these fields in the PBI report (and take the opportunity to change the Data Catalogue) and then do the PR in DWH to change the logic. Before that though let's check that the names included in this PR are the correct ones :)
# 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: #22688
# Description
Propagates Protection Plan to price and cover to intermediate. Ideally I wanted to have a single table that contained prices + covers, but it is not straight forward to assume:
* if a modification of the amount covered by a protection plan will create a new protection plan id, or not
* if a modification of the price a protection costs will create a new protection plan id, or not
So I keep it split for the time being. Besides, use cases might be different, ex: I want to see all prices of services (product + protection plan, but no need for cover).
# 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: #20809
# Description
Adds int_core__product_service_to_price.
This model is the equivalent of staging but just adding currency code, product service name and a few boolean fields to identify if the product service to price is currently active and if it's the default price or not.
Currently it's a view since it has 16 records, likely it can be transformed into a table in the future.
The idea will be to create a similar table for protection_plan.
# 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.
- [NA] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models. -> We will see in the future if needs to be adapted
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #20809
# Description
Quick fix to make lower_limit_migration_date_utc more robust for new dash reporting purposes. I noticed some cases in which users were actually created after the migration date. In these cases, I just keep joined date.
# 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: #22331
# Description
This PR adds a new table named `user_product_bundle_contains_services` in intermediate core.
Mainly, this table serves as a bridge between `user_product_bundle` and `product_services`. A `product_bundle` within `user_product_bundle` can contain 1 or several services, and this was stated in the field `contains_product_services`. The value of this field corresponds to the sum of `product_service_binary_tier` from the services that apply within that bundle. Even though the information is quite concise using this format, it adds extra complexity for analytical purposes, so this new table just duplicates the `user_product_bundle` main attributes as many times as services are contained.
For example:
`id_user_product_bundle` = 383 contains one unique bundle named Basic Program. This bundle has the `chosen_product_services` = 257, which can only be decomposed in power of 2 as of the sum of 256 + 1. This bundle therefore contains 2 services, Basic Screening (`product_service_binary_tier` = 1) and Waiver Pro (`product_service_binary_tier` = 256). Thus, in the new table, we will have 2 records and remove all this logic to something more standard, as seen in this screenshot:
# Checklist
- [X] The edited models and dependants run properly with production data.
- [X] The edited models are sufficiently documented.
- [ ] The edited models contain PK tests, and I've ran and passed them. *N/A - there's no PK in this table, but the combination of columns that should be unique is tested*
- [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: #20809
# Description
Activates a commented out test for verification payments v2. The test was deactivated because of some master data issues in the backend, but they were fixed after #22148.
# Checklist
- [NA] 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: #20043
# Description
This PR modifies the V2 of `int_core__verification_payments` to make sure that taxes are not computed for waivers where the host takes the risk (in line with our guest taxes guidelines: https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/Guest-Services-Taxes-How-to-calculate-a5ab4c049d61427fafab669dbbffb3a2?pvs=4#323e230365ed496cad6a65b5659895ea).
The PR changes the intermediate column `is_service_subject_to_vat`, making it `false` in the cases where there was no active payaway plan during the month where the payment was generated. This cascades in the main body of the model, because if `is_service_subject_to_vat` is `false`, then the tax amounts get turned into zero.
# 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.
add logic
Related work items: #20043
# Description
Update mtd_aggregated_metrics guest payments to be tax-exclusive
# 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.
Update mtd_aggregated_metrics guest payments to be tax-exclusive
Related work items: #20045
# 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
