fix(revenue-analytics): Use correct field name in persons join

[arthurdedeus]

Problem

The revenue view join used field_name="person" instead of "persons", silently breaking the person-to-revenue link. Existing
tests passed because they asserted the wrong value or bypassed database_operations entirely.

Part of #52270

Changes

• Fixed field_name to "persons" in source_templates.py and the corresponding test assertion
• Added an integration test that queries persons.properties through the customer revenue view after calling
  database_operations() — fails with "Unable to resolve field" if the name is wrong
• Enriched test CSV data with posthog_person_distinct_id on specific customers, subscriptions, and charges to support person
  resolution testing
• Added README documenting all test data scenarios

How did you test this code?

New integration test for persons join resolution and existing test suite passes.

Publish to changelog?

No

Docs update

No

LLM context

Co-authored with Claude Code (Opus 4.6).

[arthurdedeus]

• feat(stripe-mock): Add subscription_metadata and charge_metadata config #53596
• feat(revenue-analytics): Resolve posthog_person_distinct_id from child Stripe objects #53595
• fix(revenue-analytics): Use correct field name in persons join #53594 👈 (View in Graphite)
• fix(revenue-analytics): Groups materialized view joins #53119
• fix(revenue-analytics): Persons materialized view joins #52929
• master

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[arthurdedeus]

this is the fix

[arthurdedeus]

this file will only make sense when the whole stack is merged, as the distinct id resolution is coming in the next PR

[github-actions]

🎭 Playwright report · View test results →

⚠️ 1 flaky test:

• Materialize view pane (chromium)

These issues are not necessarily caused by your changes.
Annoyed by this comment? Help fix flakies and failures and it'll disappear!

[greptile-apps]

Prompt To Fix All With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: posthog/hogql/database/schema/test/base.py
Line: 77

Comment:
**Removed explanatory comment not made obsolete by the change**

Per the project coding conventions: *"when refactoring or moving code, preserve existing comments unless they are explicitly made obsolete by the change."* The rename of `source` → `self.source` does not invalidate this comment — it still explains *why* the `ExternalDataSchema` objects are created here (required by `RevenueAnalyticsBaseView` to discover the right tables). Please restore it:

```suggestion
        # Besides the default creations above, also create the external data schema
        # because this is required by the `RevenueAnalyticsBaseView` to find the right tables
        _invoices_schema = ExternalDataSchema.objects.create(
```

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "fix(revenue-analytics): Use correct fiel..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[greptile-apps]

Removed explanatory comment not made obsolete by the change

Per the project coding conventions: "when refactoring or moving code, preserve existing comments unless they are explicitly made obsolete by the change." The rename of source → self.source does not invalidate this comment — it still explains why the ExternalDataSchema objects are created here (required by RevenueAnalyticsBaseView to discover the right tables). Please restore it:

Suggested change

	_invoices_schema = ExternalDataSchema.objects.create(
	# Besides the default creations above, also create the external data schema
	# because this is required by the `RevenueAnalyticsBaseView` to find the right tables
	_invoices_schema = ExternalDataSchema.objects.create(

Prompt To Fix With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: posthog/hogql/database/schema/test/base.py
Line: 77

Comment:
**Removed explanatory comment not made obsolete by the change**

Per the project coding conventions: *"when refactoring or moving code, preserve existing comments unless they are explicitly made obsolete by the change."* The rename of `source` → `self.source` does not invalidate this comment — it still explains *why* the `ExternalDataSchema` objects are created here (required by `RevenueAnalyticsBaseView` to discover the right tables). Please restore it:

```suggestion
        # Besides the default creations above, also create the external data schema
        # because this is required by the `RevenueAnalyticsBaseView` to find the right tables
        _invoices_schema = ExternalDataSchema.objects.create(
```

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

_{Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!}

[rafaeelaudibert]

oops