They are to complete the invoice, so it can be in an invalid date, but
we do not want to force people to finish all required inputs before they
can add products or update quantities, do we?
Now had to add the empty option label for customer in all cases, because
it could be empty, although that should be done regardless in case
someone has a browser that does not validate fields.
I am going to add similar functions for invoices, as i will need to
add the taxes for their products and their own taxes, thus the Go code
will begin to be “too much work” and i feel better if that is in
PL/pgSQL.
If i have these functions for invoices, there is no point on having to
do almost the same work, albeit less, for products.
I have seen that pgx has the CollectRows function to do the same job as
that function. I can not use CollectRows because it uses generics and
requires Go 1.18, but i have adopted the same nomenclature they use.
Apparently, url.Values.Has and math.MaxInt was added to Go 1.17,
but on Debian Bullseye there is only Go 1.16. I do not want to
install a new version of Go to the server unless there is an
overwhelming reason, and a couple of methods are not. Thus, now i use
Go 1.16 too on my development machine, to avoid situations like this.
I store again the product’s name, description, and prices, because they
are bound to change, but the invoice should remain the same always.
That makes me wonder if i should do the same for seller’s and buyer’s
data, but that should be a different commit.
I’ve added the discount_rate domain because then i can test it
independently of the invoice_product relation, moreover i am sure i will
need it for simplified invoices too.
It seems that we do not agree en whether the IRPF tax should be
something of the product or the contact, so we decided to make the
product have multiple taxes, just in case, and if only one is needed,
then users can just select one; no need to limit to one.
I was using explicit IDs because i need them to satisfy foreign key
constraints, and also to look them up within the file, but then i had
the problem that the sequences would be left at 1, preventing me to
add new contacts or products, for instance.
Now i use the sequence exactly how the application will (i.e., with
default values), but i have to reset them to 1 to make the ID stable
even when i make tests with pgTAP on the same database.
This is not yet necessary, but the empty label is because i do not want
to select a default tax for products—at least, not without a setting for
it.
Since i need to add the required attribute now to select, because
otherwise the browser would allow sending that empty value, i did not
want to do it unconditionally, just in case.
I do not want to use floats in the Go lang application, because it is
not supposed to do anything with these values other than to print and
retrieve them from the user; all computations will be performed by
PostgreSQL in cents.
That means i have to “convert” from the price format that users expect
to see (e.g., 1.234,56) to cents (e.g., 123456) and back when passing
data between Go and PostgreSQL, and that conversion depends on the
currency’s decimal places.
At first i did everything in Go, but saw that i would need to do it in
a loop when retrieving the list of products, and immediately knew it was
a mistake—i needed a PL/pgSQL function for that.
I still need to convert from string to float, however, when printing the
value to the user. Because the string representation is in C, but i
need to format it according to the locale with golang/x/text. That
package has the information of how to correctly format numbers, but it
is in an internal package that i can not use, and numbers.Digit only
accepts numeric types, not a string.
Our company is a kind-of contact, although it does not appear in the
contact section, thus i could embed the contact form inside the tax
details form to reuse all the common fields.
I implemented the Valuer and Scanner interfaces to InputField and
SelectField for better passing values between the database and Go. I
had a conflict with the Value name and renamed the struct member to Val.
I also had to change the attributes array to be of type
template.HTMLAttr or html/template would replace `form="newtax"`
attribute to `zgotmplz="newtax"` because it deems it “unsafe”. I do
not like having to use template.HTMLAttr when assigning values, but
i do not know what else i can do now.
I was worried that i was repeating the AddInputErrors function for each
form, because they were basically the same. I could create a Form type
and make all forms embed it, but i realized that with a separate
validator i would have cleaner validation functions and would not need
the Valid field in the form that i am using only for that method.
Similar to the profile form, the login form now parses and validates
itself, with the InputField structs that the templates expect.
I realized that i was doing more work than necessary when parsing fields
fro the profile form because i was repeating the operation and the field
name, so now it is a function of InputField.
This time i needed extra attributes for the login form. I am not sure
that the Go source code needs to know about HTML attributes, but it was
the easiest way to pass them to the template.
This is just to set the correct `lang` attribute on the HTML, so that
text readers can do its job and the `(optional)` suffix of labels gets
the correct ”translation”.
Let’s start first with a non-fancy validation method with just if
conditionals instead of bringing yet another complicated library. I
hope i do not regret it.
I wanted to move all the input field to a template because all that
gobbledygook with the .input div and repeating the label in the
placeholder was starting to annoy me. Now with error messages was even
more concerning.
I did not know whether the label should be a part of the input fields
or something that the template should do. At the end i decided that
it makes more sense to be part of the input field because in the error
messages i use that same label, thus the template does not have a say
in that, and, besides, it was just easier to write the template.
The same with the error messages: i’ve seen frameworks that have a map
with the field’s id/name to the error slice, but then it would be
a bit harder to write the template.
I added AddError functions instead of just using append inside the
validator function, and have a local variable for whether it all went
OK, because i was worried that i would leave out the `ok = false`
in some conditions.
I had started writing “constructors” functions for InputField and
SelectField, but then had to add other methods to change the required
field and who knows what else, and in the end it was easier to just
construct the field inline.
jordi fita mas