# 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
Removes UNKNOWN in Service Business Type linked to 'BASIC DAMAGE DEPOSIT OR BASIC WAIVER'.
# 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.
Set option with basic waiver as deposit management
Related work items: #29649
# 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
Very silly mistake - affects many reports!
@<Joaquin Ossa> let me know if there's other use cases. I believe that's all of the computations, but you have this more fresh than me.
# 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: #28196
# 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
