I love automation of things. I especially love automating the simple parts of code review, since much of that stuff can be easily automated with static analysis tools. And one of my favorite static analysis tools, Credo, offers the ability to add your own custom checks if you so desire!
While the standard suite of checks gets you most of the way there, every team has their own style and things they want to be enforced. This can either be enforced by a human reading the code and noticing all the times this style isn’t followed (ugh…), or you can have Credo do it for you (yay!).
So, to start writing your own check, Credo has a nice mix task that gives you a
skeleton of a check that you can work with:
mix credo.gen.check. You invoke it
by giving it a file path in which you want to generate the skeleton of your
mix credo.gen.check lib/my_first_credo_check.ex. That skeleton of
a check should walk you through the gist of the process, and you can also look
at the implementations of all the other checks on Credo for help if you need it.
Many checks involve parsing the Elixir AST, so if you’re not familiar with that
format, that might be a good thing to read up on before moving into this realm.
I recommend Chris McCord’s book Metaprogramming Elixir if you want a good
overview of how the Elixir AST works. The rest of them are just parsing the
actual text of the code, which is usually a little easier to understand but
often relies on some really complicated regular expressions.
Now that you have your check implemented, you can add it to be run by including
it in your
.credo.exs file under the
checks key. Pretty easy, right?
It’s a really great, and I think under used feature of Credo. A little automation can go a long way in making code review much easier and keeping a codebase consistent, and if you’re weird like me, writing these static analysis tools can actually be really fun!
And in case you’re thinking of some ideas for custom checks, here you go:
- Some people don’t like the
&syntax for anonymous functions and always want the full
fn -> endsyntax.
- I’ve seen teams that don’t like to use
withwith only a single clause.
- Some people don’t like when pipelines are all on the same line like
data |> fun1() |> fun2.
- Some folks don’t like bare
_in patterns and always want
_var_namefor documentation purposes.
Those are just a few things you can write custom checks for. It might be worth having a conversation with your team about what style and standards you want to enforce on your project, and then sitting down to write some checks and saving everyone code review time and the need for style comments in code review. The extra special benefit of this is that these style comments, when they come from an automated source, usually come off as helpful to folks, whereas when a human brings them up they often come off as pedantic and silly, so these checks can actually help with team morale as well!