# Description
* Creates new model monthly_aggregated_metrics_history_by_deal_by_time_window
* Modifies existing intermediate entry on schema to properly fill all fields
* Creates same entry in reporting.
# 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
Fixes issues on reporting after name changes
# 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.
Bugfix
# Description
This model aggregates at monthly by deal level different metrics for AM reporting purposes. It also includes revenue retained ratios for client profitability assessment.
There's part of the existing AM report that could be simplified, likely, by using the new macro. This will be explored in a separated PR, if it applies.
# 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. ** Checked and there might be possibilities to simplify the code. I'll check ones I finish this line of work**
- [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
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
Update exposures of New Dash PBI after the inclusion of the new tab of Booking Detail
# 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.
Related work items: #25228
# Description
Exposes Booking Summary to reporting, but only for New Dash users.
# 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: #25228
# Description
Modifies Booking Service Detail table (int_core__booking_service_detail) with the following improvements:
- Considers waiver or deposit service offering as Deposit Management service business type instead of Unknown
- Includes Guest Payments (Waivers outside of Waiver PRO, Deposits) as chargeable services
- Computes total price of Waiver PRO multiplying base unit price per number of nights
# 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: #25228
# 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
Just like with S&P, I created the table for CheckIn Hero users and updated the upstream 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.
Check in Hero users table
Related work items: #25673
# Description
Fixed dumb error for model renaming
# 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.
Fix naming error
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
Propagates `AccountType` to staging by creating the first version of the model `stg_core__account_type`
# 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
Adds the fx rates integration as an exposure since it's a downstream dependency just like a dashboard would be.
# Checklist
NA
# Other
NA
Related work items: #25608
# Description
Staging model for all screen & protect price tables.
There are 4 types of protections for screen & protect and each of them have their own prices
# 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.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Staging model for all screen & protect price tables
Related work items: #25360
# Description
This PR is mainly to update the `int_screen_and_protect__verification_requests` model to include some data from Wilbur needed for the invoice.
This includes fields like `price_discounts` or `price_increases` all of which have a start and end date which should be the first and last date of any month correspondingly for when the discount/increase is being applied. For this I added some custom tests to make sure that the dates are correct, as well as another test to check that the `general_discount` and the `volume_discount` are not active at the same time, is one or the other (let me know if you think it is a bit overkill).
On the other hand I modified the `created_date` and `creation_date` fields on all the verification_request models for S&P which where incorrectly classified as cosmos_creation_date or reservation_created_date and it was the other way around. (I am aware that this will affect the PBI report, currently there is no real data so it is not an issue)
# 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.
s&p update models
Related work items: #25360
# Description
Adds the field amount_of_properties to hubspot deals, in intermediate
# 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: #25351
# Description
There was an error in the number of nights for e-deposit verifications because the order of the columns when using union all of both athena and e-deposit tables that `number_of_night`s was switched with `total_fee_local` for e-deposit, this was generating weird values that was catched on by Ana.
# 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.
fixed number of nights in edeposit
Related work items: #25546
# Description
Added the has_user_moved_from_old_dash field for the PBI 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 the has_user_moved_from_old_dash field
Related work items: #25191
# Description
Update exposures
# 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.
update exposures
Related work items: #25427
# Description
Added nbr of nights to avoid calculation 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.
- [ ] 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 nbr og nights to avoid calculation in PBI
Related work items: #25403
# Description
Check in Hero models for new report, it contains all records of check in hero API with user partner info
# 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.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Check in Hero models
Related work items: #25403
# Description
Added the missing field `is_protected` to the S&P models that comes from the `apim_users` table
I also modified the `apim_users` so the json field is actually stored as a json
# 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.
- [ ] 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: #25243
# 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
# Description
Apim User staging models
It includes both the model for users data (most of it contained in a json document) as well as user type for each API platform
# 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.
- [ ] I've picked the right materialization for the affected models.
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Apim User staging models
Related work items: #25404
