DEV Community

Write better PR's with this template 📄

Nico Montiel on February 18, 2024

Hey there! So, recently I started in a new company where the process of reviewing code is not a critical part of the workflow, so I am developing ...

Read full post

Mykhailo Toporkov • Feb 19

Have you considered using conventional commits system? You can ease enforce this just by set up pre-commit hook like husky with sth like:

#!/usr/bin/env sh
. "$(dirname -- "$0")/_/husky.sh"

red=$(tput setaf 1) # ANSI escape code for red color
reset=$(tput sgr0)  # ANSI escape code to reset color

#Commit message check

commit_msg=$(git log -1 --pretty=%B)

if ! echo "$commit_msg" | grep -qE "^(feat|fix|chore|docs|test|style|refactor|perf|build|ci|revert)(\(.+?\))?:? .{1,}$
"; then
    echo "${red}Error${reset}: Invalid commit format, try: feat(feature): description." >&2
    exit 1
fi

if [ ${#commit_msg} -gt 88 ]; then
    echo "${red}Error${reset}: Invalid commit length. Your commit message is too long." >&2
    exit 1
fi

Nico Montiel • Feb 19

In a previous job, we used to use conventional commits, and it's an amazing practice to do so.
Thanks for sharing this script, I'm sure you'll make someone's life super easy with this 😄

Pieces 🌟 • Feb 19

Thank you for sharing this! 🔥

Paweł Ciosek • Feb 19

Thank you! ♥️

BeacampHQ • Feb 20

Thanks for sharing ☺️

Antoniobox • Feb 19

Awesome!!! 😍

Comment hidden by post author - thread only accessible via permalink

Justin Boyson • Feb 21

Respectfully, I disagree. I believe PRs are the wrong place for this information. Once you merge this how do you ever find it again? I'm looking at the code in an editor 99% of the time. There is no context to this PR there. I would have to git blame the file then parse through all of the changes then go find the relevant PR.

A much better place for this information is in ADRs committed to the repo.

Document your Architectural Decisions in ADRs.
Document your code changes in your PR.

I think the Context section is great, but the Context and Description can be folded into one section. Plus I would add a testing/assertion plan to this, where it outlines how you assert that this PR does what it says. i.e. Log in, go to page, click thing see X. (Note this is separate from any automated testing. I want to know as a reviewer how do I personally confirm that what you're saying you did actually works)

That give me much more context as a reviewer and it forces your devs to not be lazy and not check their code before committing.

IMHO large boilerplate templates like this result in skimming and hand waving.