Post Commit Hooks vs Manual Testing

Developers should use post commit hooks to automate routine tasks and ensure code quality and consistency in their projects meets developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical. Here's our take.

Post Commit Hooks

Nice Pick

Developers should use post commit hooks to automate routine tasks and ensure code quality and consistency in their projects

Pros

• They are particularly useful for running unit tests, updating documentation, or sending notifications after a commit, which helps catch issues early and streamline development workflows
• Related to: git-hooks, version-control

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Manual Testing

Developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical

Pros

• It's particularly valuable for usability testing, ad-hoc bug hunting, and validating new features before investing in automation scripts, helping ensure software meets real-world expectations and reducing post-release issues
• Related to: test-planning, bug-reporting

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Post Commit Hooks is a tool while Manual Testing is a methodology. We picked Post Commit Hooks based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Post Commit Hooks wins

Based on overall popularity. Post Commit Hooks is more widely used, but Manual Testing excels in its own space.