Don't just summarize the content though, summarize the rationale or how things connect. I can read your diff myself to see what changed, I want to know the logical connections, the reason you did X and not Y, etc.

Or just say "stuff" and provide that context in the PR description separately, no need to overdo the commit log on a feature branch if you're using squash merges from your PR.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

P1000x this.

I can read a diff.

I need to know why.

No, a code comment isn't good enough, it's out of date after the next commit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Code comments for "why"s that persist. Commits for why's that are temporary.

If you need to run X before Y, add a comment. If you added X before why because it was easier, leave it in a commit

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you need to run X before Y...

Add a test that asserts that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

With a comment on the test detailing why it matters so people don't just assume the test is out of date when it fails.

And ideally test the underlying result of x before y, not the fact that x is called before y.

And while we're at it, assert in Y that X has been called, and again comment the reason for the preconditions.