GrumPHP VS Infection

GrumPHP: A PHP code-quality tool.

Depends on what you mean by plugin, but a GrumPHP is a great tool. It registers a pre-commit git hook that runs whatever quality tools you've configured every time someone commits. If one of the checks fail, the commit is aborted. It's very easy to install and configure.

sounds like you heard of Grumphp

Of course, in this simple way, you will need run the command before commits to ensure a correct code style. We can improve this we can to use some pre-commit hook, like a grumphp https://github.com/phpro/grumphp.

How does this compare to existing tools like GrumPHP or Captain Hook? Why should I use it instead?

Are you aware of GrumPHP?

I use grumphp to run phplint, phpstan, Easy coding standard (includes php-cs fixer) and phpunit. All four will automatically run before every commit, stopping any 'below standard' code from being committed. Example config file

like valplet said: https://github.com/phpro/grumphp But also: https://styleci.io/ integrates nicely with git For client side code formatting check: https://prettier.io/

Obviously, we can not generate mutants manually. For that purpose, there are mutation testing utilities. For PHP, we have Infection.

Infection: PHP Mutation Testing library. Plugins: roave/infection-static-analysis-plugin: Static analysis on top of mutation testing - prevents escaped mutants from being invalid according to static analysis bitexpert/captainhook-infection: Captain Hook Plugin to run InfectionPHP only against the changed files of a commit

Infection: PHP Mutation Testing library. Plugins: roave/infection-static-analysis-plugin: Static analysis on top of mutation testing - prevents escaped mutants from being invalid according to static analysis bitexpert/captainhook-infection: Captain Hook Plugin to run InfectionPHP only against the changed files of a commit

If you want to enforce testing automatically probably the best option is to rely on mutation testing, using Infection. That doesn't just check that the tests cover the code, it checks that if the code was different to what it is then the tests would (usually) fail.

IMO code coverage is a very flawed metric on its own. A high percentage doesn't guarantee that the tests actually test the right things, and it would be much more efficient if mutation testing was used (e.g. Infection). It still uses the generated code coverage reports, but only as a base for its own metrics.

For your last edit - you can also add infection which will infect your code with other values, like if you expect a positive number, it will try and inject a negative number - and see what happens - does your code break everything or something. Also it will try to inject false where you might expect a true and many many other things, and yes you will get some weird results from infection, but its a good thing to look at, and atleast check the logs and see why the infection failed at a test.

The only one that I've used is infection for PHP.

That's practically a light form of mutant testing. Have you checked Infection?