Why linting errors should cause tests to fail

Sep 15, 2016

TLDR: If you strictly enforce linting rules, code reviews will be easier, whole classes of bugs will disappear, and your developers will be inspired to persue a greater degree of overall code quality.

I recently had a discussion with a colleague who argued that:

Linting errors should not block a pull request from being merged.

I found myself disagreeing vehemently but unable to clearly state why. I've written this post to help clarify my thoughts on the position.

Some specifics

At Hearsay Social we use GitHub pull requests to manage changes to our code base. When a pull request is opened, Travis CI picks it up, and runs our test suite. The two requirements for merging a pull request into master, our production branch, are:

  • Approval from one other engineer

  • Passing Travis tests

We recently configured our Travis tests to include running ESLint. This means that JavaScript code that does not conform to our linting standards cannot be merged into master. While my colleague and I were both in agreement that linting is valuable, it was this change that sparked debate.

The simplified argument

My colleague's main point against including ESLint in Travis was that, in a case where the site is down and we need to ship a hotfix, a misaligned curly brace should not prevent merging the fix.

I must admit that I agree with his premise. It is far more important to bring the site back up than for master to be free of linting errors. However, I disagree that removing linting from our test suite is the best way to address this concern.

I would argue that in the case of a site-down hotfix, you should have a mechanism for bypassing tests altogether. There are many types of test failures which should not be a blocker to shipping a hotfix. For example:

  • Transient test failures caused by not properly mocking out the system clock

  • Test failures introduced by your package repository being down.

I don't think anyone would suggest disabling tests altogether just to avoid the possibility that one of these errors might block a hotfix.

If you don't have a system that can work around these types of failures, you probably should. And if you do have a system that can work around these failures, it would be appropriate to use it to work around a hypothetical misaligned curly brace.

Why I care so much

By putting test failures on a pedestal above linting errors, I think we underestimate the value of linting, and the harm that linting errors can cause.

Without enforcing your linting rules as part of your tests, you are guaranteed to end up with linting errors merged into your master branch. Let's explore three phases of a developer's workflow and see how they are negatively affected by this choice.

During code review

If a reviewer can operate under the assumption that the code they are reviewing conforms to the project's linting rules, they don't need to manually lint the code they are reading.

For example, if the reviewer sees that the author has removed a variable definition, they can trust that the author did not overlook a later usage of that variable. Without the linter's assurance, the reviewer would need to manually check the entire file for other usages of that variable.

This applies to less overt errors as well. Did the author use the right number of spaces when they indented? If linting is automatic, the reviewer has to do less of it manually.

During deploy

In addition to testing for issues of style, linters check for code validity. We should not deploy code that is invalid.

For example, calling console.log will cause your application to crash in Internet Explorer 9. Despite this dire consequence, developers frequently open pull requests that include console.log statements leftover from debugging. A linting rule like no-console, if enforced as part of your test suite, can give you complete confidence that you will never encounter that particular bug in production.

On a new feature branch

When a developer starts a new feature branch, they start their branch off of master. This means they are starting their work on a branch that could already have linting errors. When it's time for the developer to ship her changes, she is now forced to choose between cleaning up somebody else's mess, or leaving these linting errors in master.

The presence of these errors also reinforces a mentality that such errors are acceptable in master. While a single linting failure may seem quite harmless, the precedent it sets can be terribly damaging.

Addison Wesley Longman puts it best in his description of the broken window theory in his book The Pragmatic Programmer:

One broken window, left unrepaired for any substantial length of time, instills in the inhabitants of the building a sense of abandonment—a sense that the powers that be don't care about the building.

So another window gets broken. People start littering. Graffiti appears. Serious structural damage begins. In a relatively short space of time, the building becomes damaged beyond the owner's desire to fix it, and the sense of abandonment becomes reality.


Like unit tests, the assertions your linting tool provides can be tremendously valuable, but only if they are enforced in absolute terms and at the right boundary. I believe that to derive the most value from a linting tool, an organization must be steadfastly committed to not permitting linting errors to be merged into production code.

Many thanks to Garland Trice for this stimulating conversation. I've had enormous fun thinking in depth about this question.