For some reason, i assumed that if the invoice product has and ID, that
is it comes from the database, it must also have a product ID, which is
incorrect, because we allow invoice lines with products not added to the
product relation.
I am using zero to mean “no product ID”, so now that validation has to
include the zero as well.
Otherwise, pgx (rightfully) tries to convert a "" into a integer, as
this is the field’s type, cannot, and panics with an error.
Added a IntegerOrNull method to FormField because this is exactly the
same that happens with the invoiceProductId, and made no sense to have
to do the logic twice, or in a function inside form.
Oriol told me what he actually wants: a way to see the current month,
quarter, and year for both double-check that the taxes form are filled
in correct and to see whether the business is doing well. This is
specially important for the quarter period, as he has to fill taxes
each quarter. Thus, the “last 90 days” thing i did was easier for me,
but completely useless for him.
We also decided to add previous month and previous quarter options
because it would be unfair to expect users check that data exactly the
last day or “lose access” to it.
I had to change MethodOverrider to check whether the form is encoded as
multipart/form-data or i would not be able to get the method field from
forms with files.
For now i add the file manually, i.e., outside add_expense and
edit_expense PL/pgSQL functions, because it was faster for me, but i
will probably add an attach_to_expense function, or something like that,
to avoid having the whole ON CONFLICT logic inside Golang—this belongs
to the database.
By chance, i found out that sometimes Go returned a Content-Type header
of text/plain for some responses to HTMx request. Go’s documentation
for http.ResponseWriter.Write sheds some light to this issue:
> If the Header does not contain a Content-Type line, Write adds a
> Content-Type set to the result of passing the initial 512 bytes of
> written data to DetectContentType.
http.DetectContentType has “sniff signatures” for the most common HTML
elements, such as `<BODY`, `<P`, or even `<!--`, but when the template
only has elements not in that list, the text “text sniff signature”
kicks in because the content does not contain binary data bytes, as
specified in [0], §7.1, step 9.
I can not change mustRenderTemplate’s wr parameter, and its callers’,
to be of type http.ResponseWriter because mustWriteInvoicePdf writes
the template to a pipe object, which is not of this type. Thus, i have
to resort to type assertion inside the method.
[0]: https://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/#identifying-a-resource-with-an-unknown-mime-type
The product search returns a list of products using its slug as the
“external key”, because i do not want people seeing the id in links,
and the search product list is just a different rendering of the product
index table.
However, now i had two almost identical select queries for product,
one using the product_id and the other its slug, the former intended for
the form to select products using checkboxes—the one non-JavaScript
users see—and the latter for the product search.
Using the slug in both forms i can now simplify the code and have a
single query.
With Oriol agreed that adding or editing invoices, products, and
contacts is not just a “user interruption” but the main flow of the
program, and, as such, it is not correct to use dialogs for these.
More importantly, it was harder to concentrate, specially with the more
involved form of invoices, because of all the “noise” behind the dialog.
This is for “free products”, where the user adds an invoice row, does
not select a product from the search, and clicks the update button.
Numerus should select “appropriate” values for those that are left
unspecified.
I also no longer require the product_id to be an integer; if it is
empty, then it is assumed to be a “free product”.
I actually find more comfortable to select the product from the list
presented up until now, but this is mostly because i have very few
products and the list is not too long, so the idea is that with
JavaScript we will dynamically add an empty product row to the invoice
and then use the name field to search the product by name.
I have the feeling that i am doing something wrong because i ended up
with a lot of HTMx attribute for what i feel is not that much work,
but for now it will work.
I have added the `Is` field to `InputField` in order to include the `id`
attribute to the HTML element, because the HTMLAttributes are attached
to the `input`, not the `div`, and i felt like this one should also be
a custom element based on div, like all the others.
These is not yet any keyboard control to select the search results.
I am not happy with having the search of products in a different URL
than the index, specially since they use the exact same SQL query and
ProductFilter struct, but i did not know how else ask for a different
representation without resorting to the more complicated MIME types.
I need a way to search products by name in the invoice form, when the
user adds or changes a product. Since this is something that i have to
add too to the product list, i added it now so the function will already
be ready.
We are going to allow invoices with products that are not (yet) inserted
into the products table.
We always allowed to have products in invoices with a totally different
name, description, price, and whatnot, but until now we had the product
id in these invoice lines for statistics purposes.
However, Oriol raised the concern that this requires for the products
to be inserted before we can create an invoice with them, and we do not
plan to have a “create product while invoicing” feature, thus it would
mean that people would need to cancel the new invoice, create the new
product, and then start the invoice again from scratch.
The compromise is to allow products in the invoice that do not have a
product_id, meaning that at the time the invoice was created they were
not (yet) in the products table. Oriol sees this stop-invoice-create-
product issue more important than the accurate statistics of product
sales, as it will probably be only one or two units off, anyway.
I did not want to allow NULL values to the invoice product’s product_id
field, because NULL means “dunno” instead of “no product”, so i had to
split that field to a separate table that relates an invoice product
with a registered product.
We have reconsidered the toggle thing and instead moved the selection
into a little menu on top of the input, like the input’s label does à
la Material Design.
I just moved the checkboxes into a new details, that works as a menu,
but i had to add the type="search" to the existing input in the tags
field, or the CSS would style the checkboxes as well.
I do not do anything when the checkbox selection changes because that
already triggers a POST to the server that returns the new HTML with
the checkbox changed, and the JavaScript only has to retrieve that new
structure, exactly as it does in the initial rendering.
Since we want to add a little description to the options, i no longer
can use the same SelectOption in ToggleField, even though i could have
reused the Group element, but that felt wrong.
I realized that using a select for just two, short, options is overkill:
the select and its options use a lot more real state than the two
radios, which can have tooltips (not yet, though).
Since i am going to replace this field with a custom element that has
a toggle-like aspect, i already added the is="numerus-toggle" attribute
and use it for stying the non-JavaScript field.
This is because Oriol thinks that there may be cases where you want to
search invoices and such that have any of the selected labels, not all
of them, so we agreed on adding an option to choose.
The idea is that it will be a toggle, but this requires JavaScript and
this commit adds it as a dropdown as a first non-JavaScript step.
I use the same pattern as HTMx’s “Click to Edit” example[0], except that
my edit form is triggered by submit and by focus out of the tags input.
I could not, however, use the standard focus out event because it would
also trigger when removing a tag with the mouse, as for a moment the
remove button has the focus and the search input dispatches a bubbling
focusout. I had to resort to a custom event for that, but i am not
happy with it.
The autofocus attribute seems to do nothing in this case, so i need to
manually change the focus to the new input with JavaScript. However,
this means that i can not use the same input ID for all the forms
because getElementById would always return the first in document order,
changing the focus to that same element and automatically submit the
form due to focus out. That’s why in this form i append the invoice’s
slug to the input’s ID.
Finally, this is the first time i am using an HTMx-only solution and i
needed a way to return back just the HTML for the <td>, without <title>,
breadcrumbs, or <dialog>. In principle, the template would be the
“layout”, but then i would need to modify everything to check whether
the template file is empty, or something to that effect, so instead i
created a “standalone” template for these cases.
[0]: https://htmx.org/examples/click-to-edit/
It all started when i wanted to try to filter invoices by multiple tags
using an “AND”, instead of “OR” as it was doing until now. But
something felt off and seemed to me that i was doing thing much more
complex than needed, all to be able to list the tags as a suggestion
in the input field—which i am not doing yet.
I found this article series[0] exploring different approaches for
tagging, which includes the one i was using, and comparing their
performance. I have not actually tested it, but it seems that i have
chosen the worst option, in both query time and storage.
I attempted to try using an array attribute to each table, which is more
or less the same they did in the articles but without using a separate
relation for tags, and i found out that all the queries were way easier
to write, and needed two joins less, so it was a no-brainer.
[0]: http://www.databasesoup.com/2015/01/tag-all-things.html
This makes reload only the <main> portion of the page, instead of the
whole thing, which to me looks faster; haven’t really measured it.
Like with duplicate, i had to add the location query argument when
inside the view page in order to return back to the same page, not the
index.
Had to add a new hidden field to the form to know whether, when the
request is HTMx-triggered, to refresh the page, as i do when duplicating
from the index, or redirect the client to the new invoice’s view page,
but only if i was duplicating from that same page, not the index.
Since i now have to target main when redirecting to the view page, so
i had to add a location structure with the required json fields and all
that, when “refreshing” i actually tell HTMx to open the index page
again, which seems faster, now that i am used to boosted links.
Changed the invoice number field’s type to search to add the delete icon
on Chromium. Firefox does not add that icon, but i do not care; it is
still better that type="text".
Had to emit the change event to the numerus-tag field, otherwise the
form would not detect the change.
I also can not use keyup as a trigger because the changed modifier can
not be used in the <form>, as nothing ever changes, i do not know how to
trigger the form from children (i.e., data-hx-trigger on the <input>
does nothing), and i can not trigger for just any keyup, or i would
make the request even if they only moved the cursor with the arrow keys,
which is very confusing as Firefox resets the position (this may be due
the fact that i reload the whole <main>, but still).
This is for the unusual case of products without taxes, that PostgreSQL
by default would generate an array with a single null value in it, but
then pgx would not be able to set that null to the string variable.
Initially, this field was meant to be left almost always blank, except
for when we deleted invoiced and had to “replace” its number with a new
invoice; using the automatic numbering in this cas would not “fill in”
the missing number in the sequence.
However, we decide to not allow removing invoicer not edit their
numbers, therefore, if everything goes as planned, there should not be
any gap in the sequence, and that field is rendered useless.
Oriol suggested making it a read-only field, both for new and edit
forms, but i do not think it makes sense to have a field if you can not
edit it at all, specially in the new invoice dialog, where it would
always be blank. In the edit form we already show the number in the
title and breadcrumbs, thus no need for the read-only field as
reference.
I still keep a Number member to the form struct, but is now a string
(kind of “a read-only field”, in a way) and just to be written in the
title or breadcrumbs. I did not like the idea of adding a new SQL
query just for that value.
In this case i have to use the same id for the dialog content in all
pages because, for now, there are a couple of forms that need to replace
it on submit—the new/edit form and the product selection form.
Unfortunately, HTMx does not have support for `formaction` attribute at
this point, so i had to use the workaround described in [0].
[0] https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/issues/623
Instead of using links in the invoice tags, that we will replace with a
“click-to-edit field”, with Oriol agreed to add a form with filters that
includes not only the tags but also dates, customer, status, and the
invoice number.
This means i now need dynamic SQL, and i do not think this belongs to
the database (i.e., no PL/pgSQL function for that). I have looked at
query builder libraries for Golang, and did not find anything that
suited me: either they wanted to manage not only the SQL query but also
all structs, or they managed to confuse Goland’s SQL analyzer.
For now, at least, i am using a very simple approach with arrays, that
still confuses Goland’s analyzer, but just in a very specific part,
which i find tolerable—not that their analyzer is that great to begin
with, but that’s a story for another day.
jordi fita mas