Eliminate an entire category of bugs with a few simple tools

You've probably heard of ESLint, Prettier, and TypeScript. These are static code analysis tools that are wildly popular in the JavaScript ecosystem. I consider them all testing tools. Let's take a look at each:

ESLint

ESLint is the pluggable linting utility for JavaScript. Linting is the process of analyzing code for potential errors without actually running the code. Consider this code:

if ((!'serviceWorker') in navigator) {
	// the user's using an old browser :-(
}

Do you spot the problem? If you do, that's great! But don't you think it'd be cool to not have to use your brain power to find and correct subtle bugs like this one? I do! Make a computer do as much of my work for me as possible, please and thank you. That's what ESLint does for you.

Prettier

Prettier is the JavaScript code formatter. It'll take your code however you write it, and reformat it in a way that's consistent and legible every time. People often give me quizzical looks when I refer to Prettier as a testing tool. But check this out:

const a = false
const b = false
const c = true
const d = a && b || c

What's the value of d here? Do you know the order of operations of those operators by heart? If you do, great! But do you trust that all the engineers on your team know them well enough to not introduce a bug when refactoring this?

Run that code through Prettier, and this is what you get:

const a = false
const b = false
const c = true
const d = (a && b) || c

Even if you do know the order of operations, the extra parentheses — which Prettier automatically adds when you save the file — are quite helpful. And if you realize that's not what you wanted, then you can add the parentheses yourself and Prettier will leave it that way (const d = a && (b || c)).

This is one example of things Prettier does to make the intent of your code more obvious — freeing your brain to focus on harder problems.

TypeScript

These are static type checkers for JavaScript. A static type checker adds syntax to JavaScript to allow you to specify what data type a variable is. It can follow that variable through the code to make sure it's being used properly. (No more x is not a function.)

Can you spot the bug in this code?

function getFullName(user) {
	const {
		name: { first, middle, last },
	} = user
	return [first, middle, last].filter(Boolean).join(' ')
}

getFullName({ first: 'Joe', middle: 'Bud', last: 'Matthews' })

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Maybe your coworkers can, maybe they can't. In any case, wouldn't it be cool if we had some software that could spot the issue for us? Let's rewrite that function to TypeScript:

type User = {
  name: {
    first: string,
    middle: string,
    last: string,
  },
}
function getFullName(user: User): string {
  const {
    name: {first, middle, last},
  } = user
  return [first, middle, last].filter(Boolean).join(' ')
}

Now if we call it like we did before, here's what we get:

Argument of type '{ first: string; middle: string; last: string; }' is not assignable to parameter of type 'User'.
  Object literal may only specify known properties, and 'first' does not exist in type 'User'.(2345)

I like to consider type definitions with TypeScript to be a form of inline automated tests. I strongly recommend you give it a shot if you haven't yet. Incremental adoption is possible with these tools (especially if you're already using babel, you can just start using babel-preset-typescript). Try it out on your next feature and see what you think.

Conclusion

Static code analysis is a great way to get a significant boost of confidence — fast, easily, and with less effort than writing unit tests for the entire codebase. That's why it forms the base of the Testing Trophy 🏆. If you're not using these tools already, start now.