codeball-action VS danger-js

I found this neat application that finds bugs in your Pull Requests and lets you ship faster and with higher confidence.

Code authoring might be a bit too much to ask of current tools for now, but code review (example 1, example 2) seems much more feasible right now. If employed judiciously it's another effective analysis tool to automatically find bugs, automating a task that can be a tedious challenge for many programmers. A human reviewer might ultimately still need to be involved, but less intensely.

Codeball is a new and ballsy attempt at taking automation further. It simulates the developer intuition and approves safe pull requests, saving teams time.

There’s more do checkout dangerjs website.

Make sure to not accept any Pull Request with commented ESLint errors to ensure a continuous improvement of your codebase quality. Some tools can help you to automate this part of the review, such as Danger JS.

commitlint & dangerjs. Linters that help maintain consistency in all user-provided information related to Git and GitHub (commits, branch names, PR titles, etc.).

Does your team use any automatic code formatting or linting tools? E.g. for TypeScript or JavaScript, a combination of Prettier and ESLint, with a well understood and agreed-upon configuration, can avoid this kind of back and forth. Danger.js is a good way to handle the higher level concerns that cannot be addressed at the syntax level.

This tool is run in our CI pipeline for every PR and the result is shown in the Github PR (it uses Danger behind it).