# Description
First step towards reporting New Dash is to be able within DWH to know which hosts have been migrated.
In order to do so, and anticipating that there's going to be new phases in the future, I've created a `int_core__user_migration` model that reads from a configuration macro `get_new_dash_migration_phases_config` that will allow semi-automatic user retrieval in the future. This avoids nasty hardcoding within the model itself.
The information of whether a user is migrated, in which phase and when the phase was deployed is available at user level in the `int_core__user_host` table.
# 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. **-> I selected a view for this model since I don't believe we should materialse this data other than the user host table**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #19570
# Description
Changes:
* Separate 1) the internal naming of dimensions available within DWH vs. 2) the display of the dimensions in the reporting. Mainly it changes the "by_number_of_listings" to display "By # of Listings Booked in 12 Months". I edited the production macro since to me it's linked to when things are available for display.
* Add preceding zeros on the segmentation so it's ordered correctly. Before, the segment 21-60 was displayed before the 6-20.
* Also added some capital letters to the schema config of the reporting model :)
I attach a screenshot of how it looks in PBI in my local development branch to exemplify why this is "Beautification". Be aware that merging this also puts in production the dimensions.
# 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: #19325
# Description
Added address_validation to int_core__vr_check_in_cover for check in hero report in PBI
# 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: #17069
# Description
Adds the possibility of considering as Hosts those users that come from Know Your Guest (KYG), after the discussion with Ben R yesterday. This uses the Claim table, specifically on any Kyg claim type:
- KygRegistrationSignUpType
- KygRegistrationIntegrationTypeName
- KygMvp
From what I see compiling the new vs. the previous version of this model and running into production to have up-to-date data, this increases the number of hosts in 8, from 2.608 to 2.616 so it's not a massive change in volumes.
I also modified the schema for this model to reflect the new logic.
# 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: #19513
# Description
Created address_validations in intermediate 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: #17069
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_guest_payments_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields, tests and apply the proper naming (from guest revenue to guest payments). I also modified a silly naming that was referring to deals to refer to listings/accommodations, my bad.
Added the macro to retrieve the production dimension in `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking, Guest Journey, Deal and Accommodation metrics. For reference, [here's the previous PR on Accommodations](https://guardhog.visualstudio.com/Data/_git/data-dwh-dbt-project/pullrequest/2575?_a=overview).
# 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: #19325
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_accommodation_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields and tests. Hardcoded `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking, Guest Journey and Deal metrics. For reference, here's [the previous PR on Deal](https://guardhog.visualstudio.com/Data/_git/data-dwh-dbt-project/pullrequest/2534). I noticed that I mixed the schema tests of Deals and Accommodations, this PR should fix both.
# 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: #19325
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_deal_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields and tests. Hardcoded `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking and Guest Journey metrics. For reference, [here's the previous PR on GJ](https://guardhog.visualstudio.com/Data/_git/data-dwh-dbt-project/pullrequest/2533).
# 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: #19325
# Description
Modifies `int_core__mtd_guest_journey_metrics` to include the customer segmentation based on listings. `schema.yaml` is also affected including new fields and tests. Hardcoded `int_core__mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` to avoid propagating this upwards and messing up with the data display.
Overall, follows a similar strategy as we did for Booking metrics.
# 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: #19325
# Description
This is a first idea of how I'd like to add dimensionality in the KPIs for the mtd models. For the moment, I keep deal_id apart, so I just touch the "mtd" models, that so far only contained "global" metrics.
In this case I include the listing segmentation (0, 1-5, 6-20, etc) in the bookings. To do this, I created 2 new fields: dimension and dimension_values.
I also created a "master" table with `date` - `dimension` - `dimension_value` called `int_dates_mtd_by_dimension`
Important notes:
- I force a hardcode in `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics`. This is to not break production.
- You will notice how repetitive the code is starting to look. My intention with this PR is that we are happy with this approach on the naming, the strategy for joins, etc. If that's ok, next step is going to be doing macros on top. Think of the state of `int_core__mtd_booking_metrics` as the "compiled version" of the macro that should come afterwards.
# 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.
- [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: #19325
# Description
Adds 2 new tables:
- `int_core__user_role`: contains the relationship of a given user has a role.
- `int_core__user_host`: based on the previous table, it selects the users and main information from those users that are considered as hosts according to the role they have.
Note: I needed to change the test in stg. A user, generally, can have no role, one role, or multiple roles. Thus we cannot propagate this information in the unified_user model.
# 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: #19513
# Description
I modified the model of duplicated_bookings, I saw it had some errors and data that was not being used
# 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: #18875
This PR creates a new model int_core__mtd_accommodation_segmentation that provides the customer segments based on listing activity:
- 0
- 1-5
- 6-20
- 21-60
- 61+
For end of April 2024, the volume distribution on number of deals and total listings booked is:
For information, I estimate that around 3% of listings with bookings are missed, according to the data displayed in the KPIs for 30th April 2024. This is because we enforce deal-based categorisation (same happens with the deal view, anyway)
Related work items: #19325
Small refactor to follow up on last week's PR. We removed from the Guest Revenue models the host-takes-waiver aspect, thus these models are now only depending from Core. We just need to migrate it from cross to core.
One small detail as well, since we do not take into account at these models level the host-takes-waiver, technically, I would not call these models revenue but rather Guest Payments. This is why I also took the opportunity to apply this name.
Changes:
- `int_monthly_guest_revenue_by_deal` is now `int_core__monthly_guest_payments_history_by_deal`, and the location has changed from `intermediate.cross` to `intermediate.core`
- `int_mtd_guest_revenue_metrics` is now `int_core__mtd_guest_payments_metrics`, and the location has changed from `intermediate.cross` to `intermediate.core`
- Schema changes, moving these 2 models' documentation with the new naming from Cross to Core
- Provide continuity in following dependants: `int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics` and `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` now read from the 2 new models respectively. Additionally, the model alias has changed from `guest_revenue` to `guest_payments` to keep consistency.
This PR does not expose new metrics, but should keep the existing ones unaffected.
Related work items: #18914
Changing naming to follow convention.
This PR has the following changes:
- the model `int_core__mtd_aggregated_metrics` has been moved to cross and changed the name to `int_mtd_aggregated_metrics`
- the model `int_core__monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` has been moved to cross and changed the name to `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`
- the reporting models `core__mtd_aggregated_metrics` and `core__monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` now source the `int_mtd_aggregated_metrics` and `int_monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` to avoid breaking the production dashboard
- the reporting models have been duplicated from core into general with the correct names, i.e., `mtd_aggregated_metrics` and `monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`
- Documentation has been moved in intermediate and replicated in reporting, adding comments on the currently in use models that are going to die soon.
This will allow for a transition of the PBI dashboard from one source to another. Exposures file still not touched since technically the report is still sourcing the 'legacy' models. Documentation of the refactor here: https://www.notion.so/knowyourguest-superhog/Refactoring-Business-KPIs-5deb6aadddb34884ae90339402ac16e3
Related work items: #18202
New model for guests satisfaction report, I included columns to check what is the guest paying for that might be helpful for analysis as well
Related work items: #16947
Adds the following metrics:
- Guest Journey with Payment
- Guest Journey Payment Rate
by both visions (global and by deal id)
**Important**: it does not expose these metrics to the dashboard, this will be done after we have feedback from Ben R. on the paid GJ without GJ completeness. Missing steps to make them appear is to adapt `int_core__mtd_aggregated_metrics` and `int_core__monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal` and the respective reporting counterparts.
It adapts:
- `int_core__mtd_guest_journey_metrics`
- `int_core__monthly_guest_journey_history_by_deal`
the approaches are similar in the sense that we join with `int_core__verification_payments` and filter by a PAID status, that has been defined in the `dbt_project.yml` in a similar manner as we did with cancelled bookings. It can happen that the same verification request has multiple payments (see screenshot), which in this case we keep the first date in which the paid payment happens. The volume is quite low anyway.
code for the screenshot:
```
with pre as (
select
id_verification_request,
count(distinct icvp.id_payment) as total_paid_payments
from intermediate.int_core__verification_payments icvp
where icvp.payment_status = 'Paid'
group by 1
)
select
case when total_paid_payments > 2 then 'more than 2'
when total_paid_payments = 2 then '2'
when total_paid_payments = 1 then '1'
end as payment_volume_category,
count(1) as vr_volume
from pre
group by 1
order by 2 desc
```
I also added a missing reference in `schema.yaml` int about `int_core__mtd_guest_journey_metrics`
Related work items: #18105
This PR creates 2 new models:
- `int_core__monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`, which just gathers the information of the previously created models that compute the kpis by deal id.
- `core__monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal`, effectively a copy from intermediate to reporting
It also includes documentation of these 2 models, differences between these and the `mtd_aggregated_metrics` equivalents and references it to exposures. I took the opportunity to update the documentation of the `core__mtd_aggregated_metrics` now that it's a bit more mature.
This should be the last PR for the first draft of 'by deal' metrics.
Related work items: #17689
