EnakPoint can only be redeemed for vouchers now: it can no longer pay for
orders and is never cashed out (docs/enakgame-prd.md §3.2, EG-001,
EG-002). No order was ever paid with EnakPoint, so there is no data to
move.
Removed:
- POST /customer/wallet/payment-code, POST /customer/orders/:id/pay-with-points
and GET /orders/:id/point-payment/preview, with their processors,
repositories, services, handlers and tests.
- The point payment method type: paying, splitting and refunding with it,
the outlet filter on the method list, and the system-method guard.
- points and payment_code on CreatePayment; points_used and point_value
on payments; accepts_point_payment on the customer outlets.
- The outlet point_payment settings. A PUT that still sends them is
rejected as an unknown field.
- The EnakPoint split in the payment method analytics.
- PAYMENT and PAYMENT_REFUND from the wallet type rules. Tests that used
them as a generic EnakPoint debit use REWARD_REDEEM.
- The EnakPoint-paid part from the earning basis, which is
subtotal − discount again.
Migration 000102 drops the trigger, the point methods and their index,
the payments columns, and the outlet settings, and restores the method
type CHECK without point. payments.payment_method_id is ON DELETE
RESTRICT, so it fails rather than lose a payment made with EnakPoint.
The integration docs list the removed endpoints and fields, and the
EnakPoint & EnakCoin PRD and tasks note what is superseded.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Keeps EnakPoint out of the money in on the payment method analytics
(docs/prd-point-coin.md F9, K7, PC-308), the one report that sums payments;
the daily transaction and profit-loss PDFs do not break payments down by
method.
summary.total_amount is now only money actually received. EnakPoint stays
listed as its own method, with points_used, and the summary adds
point_amount, points_used and total_with_points. Each method row says
whether it counts_as_cash_in, and the shares are of the money received, 0
for EnakPoint. The average order value still includes what EnakPoint paid,
since that is part of what the orders were worth. How EnakPoint is booked
waits on note N2.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Products like fish are sold per weighing (4.2 ons, 5.6 ons), which the
order line could not represent: quantity is INTEGER and prices are always
computed as quantity * unit_price.
Model one weighing as one order line. quantity stays INTEGER and keeps
meaning "how many items"; the measured amount goes into a new nullable
order_items.weight, and the line is priced weight * unit_price. Two
weighings of the same product are two lines, never merged into one.
Keeping quantity integral avoids float comparisons in void, refund and
split bill, where accumulated rounding error would silently misbehave —
"1.4 + 1.4 + 1.4" is not 4.2 in float64, which would leave a fully paid
split-bill item marked unpaid.
BillableQuantity() is now the single place that decides between weight
and count; every price and cost calculation goes through it. Missing one
would bill a 4.2 ons fish as a single ons — wrong money, no error.
Two database constraints back the design: a weighed line always carries a
positive weight, and its quantity is pinned to 1. The latter also makes
void all-or-nothing for weighed lines, so the row-splitting branch can
never produce a zero-weight remainder row.
Also wires product.unit_id through the API, which was previously not
settable at all, and corrects the misleading comment on the request's
unit_price field — that value has never been used; price always comes
from the database.
Design notes and the audit of every price multiplication site are in
docs/rfc-weight-based-products.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
efrilmandClaude Opus 5.5
ryan
Aditya Siregar