Precommit hooks: get out of my way

Javascript tooling hasn't gone extinct over the last years; it's flourished in a lot of our codebases as linters, formatters, transpilers, vulnerability-scanners, etc, etc.

Which is great because it's assisted us in the difficult task of writing code together, with the same patterns encouraged and same anti-patterns removed depending on your team's configuration files.

But "assisting" literally means to stand next to, aside. As soon as it starts leading your thinking, you're probably in the wrong place. If you rely on ESLint to tell you how complex your code is then you're slowly giving up being a good, self-evaluating programmer.

Most projects nowadays use a git-flow-ish approach. In other words: the main branch is protected. And from my experience over the last 5 years there have always been a CI bot running the tests of any candidate PR to be merged into the main branch. You get a couple reviews, and if the bot's test report is green, so are you.

And that is good. A pull request is a proposal, and as any proposal should be formulated, not thrown over. A pull request should be the final form of your branch.

The company I work at has enforced over the years running pre-commit hooks on most of our projects. This means before you can commit, the linter has to run and the unit tests have to pass. Sounds sane?

I think not. Having a background process run for about 2 minutes between each commit is simply absurd. Why would you come nosing into my current history? What distrustful entity needs to check my code every single time I decide to save my current progress?

Progress isn't done. I'm not going to spend much time on this as it seems rather limpid. Progress. Isn't. Done.

It seems overzealous to enforce the whole adage that no commit should ever break master. And you know what? No commit should. But your feature branch isn't master. It's everyone's right to work their code as they want to, and it's everyone's duty to make sure the final history looks spotless.

Git offers rebasing, amending, squashing, instant fixups for that very reason. So you can tailor your history as makes sense, and so that your code is ready for inspection once you deem it so. Trying to add correctness through commit hooks is invasive, and unhelpful. Adding some automated process every time you want to commit your history is like riding a bike with stabilisers all the time. You'll never learn, and you'll never gain speed.

Please don't micro-manage code. If you have juniors or people who tend to do mistakes, help them uncover these mistakes themselves rather than dropping some process on them. If your master branch is protected (and it should be), they will find out anyway. But once they start assuming responsibility for their code they'll be more cautious. They'll be more critical. They'll be programmers you can trust rather than code-writing puppets.

And they will live happily ever after, along with the ones who thrive on quick commit loops and uninterrupted flows to get their software over the line. Over & out.

PS: if you're editing code and committing it with linting mistakes, get a grip and fix your editor. It's that simple.

Last updated: 2022-12-05 Mon 15:59