TREATAS vs USERELATIONSHIP - Both incorrect?!

[scriptpup]

Can anyone explain the differences between TREATAS and USERELATIONSHIP in a practical application? The key difference as far as I can tell is USERELATIONSHIP needs an inactive relationship defined in the model to work.

There's also some other difference that I'm not able to pin down, but the same calculation using USERELATIONSHIP and TREATAS results in completely different results. For example:

DEFINE 
MEASURE Transactional[test_taskJoin2] = CALCULATE(DISTINCTCOUNT(Transactional[Profile Task Id]) , TREATAS( VALUES(Transactional[Profile Activity Owner ID]), Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID]))
MEASURE Transactional[test_taskJoin] = CALCULATE([Transactional Open], USERELATIONSHIP( Transactional[Profile Activity Owner ID], Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID]))
EVALUATE

SUMMARIZE(
Transactional, Person[Level 2 Manager]
,"Test (UseRelationship)",Transactional[test_taskJoin]
,"Test (TreatAs)", Transactional[test_taskJoin2]
)
ORDER BY 
Transactional[test_taskJoin] desc

Results in:

Then at the transactional level, filtering to a single L2 Manager (The fourth one down from the top) TREATAS matches what USERELATIONSHIP rolls up to, but USERELATIONSHIP doesn't match itself.

DEFINE
MEASURE Transactional[test_taskJoin] = CALCULATE([Transactional Open], USERELATIONSHIP( Transactional[Profile Activity Owner ID], Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID])) 
MEASURE Transactional[test_taskJoin2] = CALCULATE([Transactional Open], TREATAS( VALUES(Transactional[Profile Activity Owner ID]), Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID]) ) 

VAR __DS0FilterTable = 
TREATAS( 
{"L2 Manager Name" 
}, 
Person[Level 2 Manager] 
) 

VAR __DS0Core = 
SUMMARIZECOLUMNS( 
Agent[Agent Name], 
Transactional[Profile Task Id], 
Transactional[Case], 
__DS0FilterTable, 
"Test Task (UseRelationship)", Transactional[test_taskJoin], 
"Test Task (TreatAS)", Transactional[test_taskJoin2] 
) 

EVALUATE 
__DS0Core

Summing the two measures at the transactional level in excel ends up with:

I am completely confused as to why neither of these methods seem consistent or accurate.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

[AntrikshSharma]

@scriptpup can you post your Power BI file or the snapshot of the diagram view?

[MattAllington]

Your treatas formula is back to front

TREATAS (
                VALUES ( Transactional[Profile Activity Owner ID] ),
                Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID]
            )

have a read of my article here https://exceleratorbi.com.au/virtual-filters-using-treatas/

[scriptpup]

Hi Matt,

My mistake with the pasted formula, I actually tried it both ways but it comes back with the same results regardless of which sides I use.

I've read that column in the past, and several others that are similar. The problem I'm having is I don't understand why the two functions would result in something completely different with the same filter-set, same relationship defined, and neither of them are correct.

[MattAllington]

I stopped looking after I saw the first issue. I would doubt if summarize or SUMMARIZECOLUMNS are appropriate in this case. Both of these functions leverage the existing active physical relationships in the model to build the starting table. I suggest you don't use either of these functions and build the table yourself instead. Try this

DEFINE
    MEASURE Transactional[test_taskJoin2] =
        CALCULATE (
            DISTINCTCOUNT ( Transactional[Profile Task Id] ),
            TREATAS (
                VALUES ( Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID] ),
                Transactional[Profile Activity Owner ID],
                Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID]
            )
        )
    MEASURE Transactional[test_taskJoin] =
        CALCULATE (
            [Transactional Open],
            USERELATIONSHIP ( Transactional[Profile Activity Owner ID], Person[SRC_PRSN_HIST_GEN_ID] )
        )
EVALUATE
ADDCOLUMNS (
    ALL ( Person[Level 2 Manager] ),
    "Test (UseRelationship)", Transactional[test_taskJoin],
    "Test (TreatAs)", Transactional[test_taskJoin2]
)
ORDER BY Transactional[test_taskJoin] DESC