github-starred/better-auth
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth.git synced 2026-05-22 06:16:18 -05:00
Code Issues 2.5k Packages Projects Releases 112 Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #8997] Remove Lefthook #28575

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-04-17 20:01:19 -05:00 by GiteaMirror · 9 comments
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:19 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @dvanmali on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/8997

Originally assigned to: @gustavovalverde on GitHub.

Remove git hooks logic from repo. Additionally, the hooks are slow and cause each commit process to add ~30s per commit message, prevents commands like rebase from working, prevents commit messages in some cases via commit -m.

Argument is discussed in #1103 and #4994

Originally created by @dvanmali on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/issues/8997 Originally assigned to: @gustavovalverde on GitHub. Remove git hooks logic from repo. Additionally, the hooks are slow and cause each commit process to add ~30s per commit message, prevents commands like `rebase` from working, prevents commit messages in some cases via `commit -m`. Argument is discussed in [#1103](https://github.com/wakujs/waku/pull/1103#issuecomment-2564544165) and [#4994](https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/4994)
GiteaMirror added the needs: reproc-devops labels 2026-04-17 20:01:19 -05:00
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:21 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dvanmali commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026):

cc @gustavovalverde #8888

<!-- gh-comment-id:4193675755 --> @dvanmali commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026): cc @gustavovalverde #8888
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:21 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026):

https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/8874

I agree on this point as well.

When I first added lefthook, the goal was to run Biome lightly and avoid running format and lint commands on every AI-driven iteration.

Right now, pre-commit is too heavy. Any checks that require a build should run in CI.

Also, the spell checker runs across the entire local workspace, which makes it inconvenient to manage files that aren’t tracked by Git.

If we’re going to keep this, it needs to stay as lightweight as possible.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4195481463 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026): https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/8874 I agree on this point as well. When I first added lefthook, the goal was to run Biome lightly and avoid running format and lint commands on every AI-driven iteration. Right now, pre-commit is too heavy. Any checks that require a build should run in CI. Also, the spell checker runs across the entire local workspace, which makes it inconvenient to manage files that aren’t tracked by Git. If we’re going to keep this, it needs to stay as lightweight as possible.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:21 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026):

When I first added lefthook, the goal was to run Biome lightly and avoid running format and lint commands on every AI-driven iteration.

Hi @dvanmali 👋😁

What do you think here?

<!-- gh-comment-id:4195494854 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026): > When I first added lefthook, the goal was to run Biome lightly and avoid running format and lint commands on every AI-driven iteration. Hi @dvanmali 👋😁 What do you think here?
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:22 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@dvanmali commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026):

I think it's best to allow the user to write their own pre-commit flow in their personal workspace. Builds should catch all the failures.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4195531112 --> @dvanmali commented on GitHub (Apr 6, 2026): I think it's best to allow the user to write their own pre-commit flow in their personal workspace. Builds should catch all the failures.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:22 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MuzzaiyyanHussain commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026):

Hi,
I’d like to work on this issue. Planning to remove Lefthook and clean up related configs, while ensuring CI handles necessary checks. Please let me know if that works.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4197198499 --> @MuzzaiyyanHussain commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026): Hi, I’d like to work on this issue. Planning to remove Lefthook and clean up related configs, while ensuring CI handles necessary checks. Please let me know if that works.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:23 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@bytaesu commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026):

Hi, I’d like to work on this issue. Planning to remove Lefthook and clean up related configs, while ensuring CI handles necessary checks. Please let me know if that works.

Yeah, once you open a PR, I'll check if anything else is needed.
Feel free to go ahead!! Thank you @MuzzaiyyanHussain 😁

<!-- gh-comment-id:4198368673 --> @bytaesu commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026): > Hi, I’d like to work on this issue. Planning to remove Lefthook and clean up related configs, while ensuring CI handles necessary checks. Please let me know if that works. Yeah, once you open a PR, I'll check if anything else is needed. Feel free to go ahead!! Thank you @MuzzaiyyanHussain 😁
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:23 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@gustavovalverde commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026):

Sorry @MuzzaiyyanHussain for closing the PR you recently created (mainly because this creates triage burden based on issues that might still require more analysis). As I introduced these changes, I'll analyze this to understand if there's a different approach based on the arguments @dvanmali already shared. If the decision is removing the configurations, then I'll reopen it.

Sorry for the miscommunication. After analyzing this, I'll comment here again.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4198663089 --> @gustavovalverde commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026): Sorry @MuzzaiyyanHussain for closing the PR you recently created (mainly because this creates triage burden based on issues that might still require more analysis). As I introduced these changes, I'll analyze this to understand if there's a different approach based on the arguments @dvanmali already shared. If the decision is removing the configurations, then I'll reopen it. Sorry for the miscommunication. After analyzing this, I'll comment here again.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:23 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MuzzaiyyanHussain commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026):

No worries at all, thanks for the clarification and for taking the time to look into this further.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4198801435 --> @MuzzaiyyanHussain commented on GitHub (Apr 7, 2026): No worries at all, thanks for the clarification and for taking the time to look into this further.
GiteaMirror commented 2026-04-17 20:01:24 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@gustavovalverde commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2026):

@dvanmali can you test with these configurations? https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/9044 this also allows you to override on your environment and adjust to your needs

Also, for some edge cases you can also use git commit --no-verify to fully bypass it.

<!-- gh-comment-id:4209635425 --> @gustavovalverde commented on GitHub (Apr 8, 2026): @dvanmali can you test with these configurations? https://github.com/better-auth/better-auth/pull/9044 this also allows you to override on your environment and adjust to your needs Also, for some edge cases you can also use `git commit --no-verify` to fully bypass it.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
adapter
astro
awaiting external contributor
blocked
breaking
breaking change
bug
c-devops
core
credentials
database
dependencies
devops
devtools
docs
documentation
duplicate
elysia
enhancement
enterprise
expo
express
fastify
good first issue
help wanted
hono
identity
infra
integration
invalid
javascript
locked
maintenance
need-more-information
needs: info
needs: repro
nextjs
nuxt
oauth
organization
P0
payments
perf
platform
plugin
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
ready
regression
remix
security
social-provider
solid
stale
svelte
tanstack-start
tracking
version-bump
vue
wontfix
No Label c-devops needs: repro
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
GiteaMirror ninjasurge
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/better-auth#28575
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?