It is just the index of bookings in the created state, but we thought it
would make easier to understand the difference between a booking from
a customer not yet confirmed, from a booking confirmed or created by the
staff.
The idea is that we will marshal the payment, send it to the campsite’s
instance by email, and then unmarshal it as a booking, that way we can
have a one way replication from the internal to the public instance with
a way back to send the payments.
For testing purposes, i just create the booking in the same instance.
Had to change the booking relation’s permissions to allow insert from
a guest, much like for payments, because the notification from Redsys
comes as a guest connection. I need this even with all the
marshal/unmarshal shenanigans because not everyone will have an internal
instance, thus need to allow bookings from guest connections.
Most will be families living at the same address. And, if they are not,
it is far easier to replace the incorrect address with the actual,
rather than write the same address to all family members under the same
household.
Copied as much as i could from Numerus, and made as few modifications as
i could to adapt to this code base; it is, quite frankly, a piece of
shit.
We need to be able to create invoices from scratch “just in case”,
apparently, but it is not yet possible to create an invoice from a
booking.
I need to retrieve the values from the database and put them in the
form, like all other forms, but in this case the processing is done as
if it were a new form, because everything comes from the query string
and there is no need to do any extra work then.
Had to move the <footer> from the fields.gohtml to form.gohtml because
then it could not know that it was editing an existing booking. Had to
move the <fieldset> out too, in order to give it an ID and make it
htmx’s target, or it would replace the form, causing even more problems
—the button would disappear then—. The target **must** be in <form>
because it is needed for tis children’s hx-get and for its own hx-put.
At first i thought i would need to keep the second query of draftPayment
in newBookingCart, its caller, and i added these fields to pass back
the parsed or retrieved values, but when i could move that query within
draftPayment i forgot to remove them.
I wanted to use a regular <a>, but apparently rendering that many
anchors is too resource-intensive for Firefox, and it is noticeably
slower. It was even worse, in fact, because i had to have different
content for the main grid and the grid show in the new booking form,
as i did not want to have these links there, and had call a template for
each cell: 3 months × ~30 days × ~100 campsites = 9000 calls!
Using JavaScript for that is shameful, but it does not add much to the
existing markup, and no need for template fuckery.
I am using double-click to follow these links, instead of single click,
because it would be too easy to misclik on the grid, but that forced me
to add `user-select: none` to prevent the selection of text when double-
clicking.
Had to bring the same fields that i have for a payment to booking,
except that some of those should be nullable, because it is unreasonable
to ask front desk to gather all customer data when they have a booking
via phone, for instance.
Therefore, i can not take advantage of the validation for customer data
that i use in the public-facing form, but, fortunately, most of the
validations where in separated functions, thus only had to rewrite that
one for this case.
I already have to create a booking from a payment, when receiving a
payment from the public instance, thus i made that function and reused
it here. Then i “overwrite” the newly created pre-booking with the
customer data from the form, and set is as confirmed, as we do not see
any point of allowing pre-bookings from employees.
It does nothing but compute the total of a booking, much like it does
for guests. In fact, i use the same payment relations to do the exact
same computation, otherwise i am afraid i will make a mistake in the
ACSI or such, now or in future version; better if both are exactly the
same.
The idea is that once the user creates the booking, i will delete that
payment, because it makes no sense to keep it in this case; nobody is
going to pay for it.
Had to reuse the grid showing the bookings of campsites because
employees need to select one or more campsites to book, and need to see
which are available. In this case, i have to filter by campsite type
and use the arrival and departure dates to filter the months, now up to
the day, not just month.
Had to change max width of th and td in the grid to take into account
that now a month could have a single day, for instance, and the month
heading can not stretch the day or booking spans would not be in their
correct positions.
For that, i needed to access campsiteEntry, bookingEntry, and Month from
campsite package, but campsite imports campsite/types, and
campsite/types already imports booking for the BookingDates type. To
break the cycle, had to move all that to booking and use from campsite;
it is mostly unchanged, except for the granularity of dates up to days
instead of just months.
The design of this form calls for a different way of showing the totals,
because here employees have to see the amount next to the input with
the units, instead of having a footer with the table. I did not like
the idea of having to query the database for that, therefore i “lifter”
the payment draft into a struct that both public and admin forms use
to show they respective views of the cart.
This is actually only used for plots, but, of course, it means that
every booking now can potentially have many booked campsites, and have
to create a relation for it.
I now have a conundrum regarding stay dates: i need them to be in the
same table as the campsite_id, because constraints only work on a single
relation and without the dates i can not make sure that i am not
overbooking a given campsite; but, on the other hand, all campsites
under the same booking must be for the same dates.
Where does stay belong, then? In booking or booking_campsite? If in
booking then i can not have a constraint that most assuredly will bite
me in the back, but if in booking_campsite then each campsite could
potentially have different dates.
As far as i can see, i can not use a exclude constraint with <> for
dates in booking_campsite to ensure that all rows with the same
booking_id have the same stay (i.e., exclude those that have a different
stay for the same booking_id).
For now, the say is in **both** relations: in booking, because i need it
when it is a prebooking, at least, and in booking_campsite for the
aforementioned constraint requirements.
Will this come back and bite me? Yes, it will. But what can i do?
I need the campsite_id in booking to know what row to show the booking
at. Besides the need of knowing which actual campsite has been booked,
of course.
This field is nullable because we can not now it until an employee has
confirmed the booking; until that point we only know the campsite type
customer requested. I do not care much if the campsite_id is from a
different campsite_type, because maybe the customer requested the change
by phone or what have you, therefore the database can not be that
strict. It must have a value if the booking is confirmed.
It helps me if the arrival_date and departure_date is a single
daterange, because then i can use `&&` and other range operators to work
with these dates. For instance, i have to intersect it with the range
displayed on the screen in order to know which day i have to put it.
But then i have to know whether the booking begins and ends in the
display range, because i only have to show arrival and departure (i.e.,
the box half-way within the first or last boxes) on these days only.
Customer told us that they are used to a view of the booking status of
each campsite in the form of a grid: each campsite is a row, and each
day a column; bookings are show as boxes from the first day to the last
day on the corresponding campsite’s row.
I do not yet show the booking boxes, but at least now i have the grid
and date selector form in place.
In the form i would need a couple of input[type=month], but this is not
yet supported in Firefox and Safari. According to MDN, one common way
to bypass that problem is to have two fields, one for the month and the
other for the year; i just did that, but had to create a new input type
in the `form` package just for this.
Customer wants this because the booking is not automatically created,
thus it is possible to overbook. They want to accept the payment of
those that they can actually book.
After months of keeping what does the ACSI checkbox mean, now customer
told us that we should add a discount based on a series of
arbitrary conditions that, and need to be done NOW!
There is no UI to edit the conditions due to lack of time.
Redsys are a bunch of … something: they **only** recognize HTTP 200
as success; HTTP 204 apparently is an error for they, and don’t get
me started in not understanding what to do with an HTP 301.
Let’s just give in, and relax.
This is required by law.
I do not know why i have this value and the tax amount in the database,
but the payment percent and the number of days are hardcoded. I guess i
am such an inconsistent mess.
Apparently, the bank has to validate the fucking thing on the actual
domain, because of reasons, so we have to replace the current web in
production with this version in test mode, meaning that users **will**
believe they have paid, when in fact they have not.
The warning is for these few people that actually read such notices.
Had to do a couple of changes to the database: add the currency_code to
the payment relation, to format the price according to the payment’s
currency instead of the company’s; and the reference SQL function, to
replace the equivalent golang function, so that i can use it to index
payments.
The rest is mostly the same as any other page, except that the
individual payment’s page is not a form, but a regular info dump.
I also moved the payment settings as a sub-route of payments, as i
believe this makes more sense than an additional user menu item.
Customer wants to require a down payment of 30 % for bookings made
one week or more before the actual date, and to make the full payment
otherwise.
This would require yet another relation to keep these values. Fuck it;
i added them to the function, as they are very unlikely to change.
That forced me to change the test for draft_payment to use relative
dates, otherwise there is no way i can have stable results in the
future.
This way i can use the function in the from clause of the query that
i already had to do to get the totals formatted with to_price. In this
case, i believe it is better to leave out Go’s function because it would
force me to perform two queries.
Instead of binding a nullable string pointer with the payment’s slug,
i wanted to use pgtype’s zeronull.Text type, but it can not work in this
case because it encodes the value as a text, while the parameters is
uuid. I can not use zero.UUID, because it is a [16]byte array, while i
have it in a string.
Thus, had to create my own ZeroNullUUID type that use a string as a base
but encodes it as a UUID.
To send the actual mail with sendmail, i have stolen the code from
go-mail[0] and removed everything i did not need. This is because there
is no Go package to send email in Debian 12, and this was easier than
to build the DEB for go-mail.
Once i have the time….
[0]: https://go-mail.dev/
I have to basically do the reverse of signing the request to verify that
the notification comes from them. Lots of code just for that.
I return the changed status from the PL/pgSQL function because i will
need to email customers when a payment is completed, and i need to know
when.
I had to add the payment concept separate from the booking, unlike other
eCommerce solutions that subsume the two into a single “order”, like
WooCommerce, because bookings should be done in a separate Camper
instance that will sync to the public instance, but the payment is done
by the public instance. There will be a queue or something between
the public and the private instance to pass along the booking
information once the payment is complete, but the public instance still
needs to keep track of payments without creating bookings.
To compute the total for that payment i had to do the same as was doing
until now for the cart. To prevent duplications, or having functions
with complex return types, i now create a “draft” payment while the
user is filling in the form, and compute the cart there; from Go i only
have to retrieve the data from the relation, that simplifies the work,
actually.
Since the payment is computed way before customers enter their details,
i can not have that data in the same payment relation, unless i allow
NULL values. Allowing NULL values means that i can create a payment
without customer, thus i moved all customer details to a separate
relation. It still allows payment without customer, but at least there
are no NULL values.
Draft payments should be removed after a time, but i believe this needs
to be done in a cronjob or similar, not in the Go application.
To update the same payment while filling the same booking form, i now
have a hidden field with the payment slug. A competent developer would
have used a cookie or something like that; i am not competent.
Customer told us that there are some options, such as towels, that have
a fixed price for the whole stay, not a per night price. Thus, had to
add a boolean to know whether to use sum or max when computing the
cart’s total for each option.
It is a separate relation, instead of having a field in campsite_type,
because not all campsite types allow dogs. I could have added a new
field to campsite_type, but then its values it would be meaningless for
campsites that do not allow dogs, and a nullable field is not a valid
solution because NULL means “unknown”, but we **do** know the price —
none.
A separate relation encodes the same information without ambiguities nor
null values, and, in fact, removed the dogs_allowed field from
campsite_type to prevent erroneous status, such as a campsite type that
allows dogs without having a cost — even if the cost is zero, it has to
be added to the new relation.
jordi fita mas