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
With Oriol we agreed that contacts should have tags, too, and that the
“tag pool”, as it were, should be shared with the one for invoices (and
all future tags we might add).
I added the contact_tag relation and tag_contact function, just like
with invoices, and then realized that the SQL queries that Go had to
execute were becoming “complex” enough: i had to get not only the slug,
but the contact id to call tag_contact, and all inside a transaction.
Therefore, i opted to create the add_contact and edit_contact functions,
that mirror those for invoice and products, so now each “major” section
has these functions. They also simplified a bit the handling of the
VATIN and phone numbers, because it is now encapsuled inside the
PL/pgSQL function and Go does not know how to assemble the parts.
I am not sure if, at the end, all pages that now use
mustRenderAppTemplate will be replaced with mustRenderMainTemplate,
but for now i keep them separate to know which routes are already
“boosted”.
Had to change the data context for that template to include the Slug,
so that the <form> element can set the correct `action` instead of
using the current URI, as it is no longer “correct” (form-wise) when
using HTMx.
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.
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.
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 have been thinking about that, and it does not make that much sense to
have the titles in the Go source anymore: most of them are static text
that i have to remember to set in the controller each time, and when
the time come i have to face a dynamic title i am sure i will manage
with only the template capabilities—worst comes worst, i can always
define a function.
On the other hand, there is no way i can define a template without its
title and i know that everytime that template is used, no matter what
controller rendered it, it will always have that title.
jordi fita mas