# Description
Before deploying KPIs by Billing Country, we spotted some issues that were basically increases on the volumes of any metric on the by billing country dimension that was based on Deal. This means, `int_core__mtd_deal_metrics` and `int_xero__mtd_invoicing_metrics`.
This PR changes the following:
* Now the 2 abovementioned models depend on the `int_core__deal` model, instead of `int_core__user_host` (thus removing duplicated stuff)
* Now all models use the main billing country at deal level, instead of doing it so at host level. The reason is that some small amount of hosts that share the same deal can have a different billing country. To avoid weird stuff, everything points to this simplification - that in general, it's not a massive change in the output.
* In order to do so easily, the 3 main billing country per deal fields have been propagated to `int_core__user_host`
To exemplify the solution, find here a snapshot of the differences in behavior:
```
select
dimension,
sum(deals_booked_in_month) as deals_booked_1,
sum(deals_booked_in_6_months) as deals_booked_6,
sum(deals_booked_in_12_months) as deals_booked_12,
sum(total_revenue_in_gbp) as total_revenue,
sum(xero_operator_net_fees_in_gbp) as operator_revenue,
sum(xero_booking_net_fees_in_gbp) as booking_fees,
sum(xero_listing_net_fees_in_gbp) as listing_fees,
sum(xero_verification_net_fees_in_gbp) as verification_fees,
sum(total_guest_revenue_in_gbp) as guest_revenue,
sum(xero_waiver_paid_back_to_host_in_gbp) as waiver_paid_back_to_hosts,
sum(waiver_net_fees_in_gbp) as waiver_net_fees
from intermediate.int_mtd_vs_previous_year_metrics
where date in ('2024-01-31')
group by 1
order by 1
```
Production:
vs.
Local:
Keep in mind that still Global dimension can be greater than any other dimension aggregated since not all users have a deal. Mismatches between the other 2 dimensions might be linked to the dump.
Commits are meaningful and help navigate in the changes.
# 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: #20823
# Description
Adds Billing Country dimension in KPIs, but does not expose them to reporting yet.
Silly thing, based on the macros I built, I cannot make incremental changes unless changing all models. This will need to be adapted, happy to hear your thoughts on how we do it.
Additionally, I have lack of performance of the model `mtd_guest_payments_metrics`. It takes around 5 min to execute, but technically the end-to-end runs in one shoot without breaking.
It's a complex PR because it changes many files, but you will see that:
* It mostly changes the join conditions for the dimensions or the schema tests,
* I tried to be very careful and add things step-by-step in the commits.
Goal is NOT to complete the PR yet until we see how we can improve performance. I can say though that data end-to-end looks ok to me, but would benefit from checking with production data for the new dimension
Update 30th Aug
* Added a new commit that includes `id_user_host` in `int_core__verification_payments`. Happy to discuss if it makes sense or not. But it changes the execution from ~600 sec to ~6 sec because it avoids a massive repeated join with `verification_requests`.
# 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. **To check because of performance issues**
# Other
- [ ] Check if a full-refresh is required after this PR is merged.
Related work items: #19082
# Description
What's new:
- Creation of `get_kpi_dimensions`: new macro to have a single point of source of configuration for dimensions for the KPIs. It's a way to enforce global variables on-demand. I kind of like this approach and we could do it for Xero models as well :)
- Modification of `int_core__mtd_booking_metrics` and `int_dates_mtd_by_dimension`: removal of duplicated code within the dimension context. Uses Jinja code and applies different configurations depending on the dimension chosen. Still, different metrics are placed in different CTEs. I believe it might be possible to also configure metrics BUT at the cost of over-complexifying the macro logic, so I wouldn't go for it at this stage.
# 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
