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.
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.
We only allow a single tax of each class in products and invoices,
because it does not make sense to add two different VAT to the same
product, for instance.
We will only allow to select a tax from each of the tax classes, but
the user needs to know what class each tax belongs to, and grouping
the taxes by class in the select helps with that.
I have moved everything into a different file, even though it is related
to “db”, because it was starting to get a bit ugly.
Apparently i was doing too much work and had to read the code to
understand what i was supposed to do, because pgtypes’ documentation,
as all other projects from the same author, is almost non-existent.
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.
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.
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.
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