A static analysis tool for Elm that helps find and prevent mistakes through customizable rules.
elm-review is a static analysis tool for Elm projects that helps developers find and prevent mistakes in their code before users encounter them. It analyzes source code using customizable rules written in Elm, which can be shared as packages or created for project-specific needs. Unlike traditional linters, it doesn't come with built-in rules, encouraging teams to thoughtfully select or create rules that match their codebase requirements.
Elm developers and teams who want to maintain high code quality, enforce project-specific patterns, and prevent common mistakes through automated analysis. It's particularly useful for projects with strict architectural guidelines or teams building shared Elm libraries.
Developers choose elm-review for its Elm-native rule system, which allows writing custom rules in the same language as their codebase, and its philosophy of encouraging API improvements over unnecessary linting. Its unique suppression system enables gradual adoption of rules without compromising long-term code quality.
Analyzes Elm projects, to help find mistakes before your users find them.
Open-Awesome is built by the community, for the community. Submit a project, suggest an awesome list, or help improve the catalog on GitHub.
Rules are written in Elm, leveraging the language's type safety and familiar syntax, as demonstrated in the custom rule example using `elm-syntax` for AST traversal.
Rules are shared as Elm packages, enabling a growing collection of static analyses that teams can adopt and contribute to, mentioned in the package registry search guidance.
Supports temporary suppression of errors with JSON files, allowing incremental adoption of rules without permanent disables, detailed in the suppression system documentation.
Facilitates custom rules for architectural decisions like centralizing image paths or mandating shared components, exemplified in the README's use cases.
Emphasizes well-designed rules over easily ignorable warnings and encourages API improvements first, reducing noise and ensuring meaningful analysis, as outlined in the 'When to write or enable a rule' section.
Requires manual curation or creation of rules from scratch, which can be a significant initial setup burden compared to tools with default configurations, as admitted in the 'No Built-in Rules' philosophy.
Lacks inline comment suppression, forcing exceptions to be handled through rule configuration or directory exclusions, which may not suit all debugging workflows, as discussed in the 'Is there a way to ignore errors?' section.
Writing new rules demands understanding of Elm's abstract syntax tree and the elm-review API, presenting a steep learning curve for developers unfamiliar with static analysis.