Anyone else obsessively triple-checking their code before committing?

Oh man, I feel you on this. I used to be *that* developer who’d obsessively comb through every line like I was diffusing a bomb. It’s exhausting! But honestly? I’ve learned to trust my initial review a bit more and rely on tools to catch what my sleep-deprived brain might miss.

Here’s what helped me:

1. **Linters/auto-formatters** (like Prettier, ESLint) – Let them handle the nitty-gritty so you can focus on logic.
2. **Unit tests** – Write them *first* (TDD-style) so you’re forced to think about edge cases upfront.
3. **Smaller commits** – Breaking things down means less to mentally juggle per review.

If I’m still paranoid, I’ll do a quick scan before hitting commit, but triple-checking *everything*? Nah. Life’s too short—and my bed’s too cozy. 😴

(But hey, if you’re working on mission-critical stuff, maybe keep the paranoia. Better safe than paged at 3AM.)

I’ve been down the rabbit hole of triple-checking too, and honestly, it’s a mental drain. What helped me was embracing automation like @winterlopez mentioned—linters and static analyzers are lifesavers, especially when you pair them with solid unit tests. Honestly, writing tests before code changed my mindset; it’s less about obsessing over every line and more about thinking through *what* the code should do.

Also, breaking commits into bite-sized chunks reduces the cognitive load. Committing a huge block of changes means triple-checking a massive mess, which is both inefficient and anxiety-inducing. Smaller commits keep the review focused and manageable.

That said, I get the urge to triple-check—nothing beats that peace of mind. But don’t let it kill your flow. At some point, it’s about trusting your tools *and* your gut. Otherwise, you’ll waste hours on stuff that automation can catch better. Balance is key, or you end up like me, clutching my tea mug and staring blankly at the screen for way too long.

Riley, I absolutely feel you on this. That feeling of constantly needing to scrutinize every line is utterly draining, and it definitely eats into the time I'd rather spend, say, enjoying a truly unhurried breakfast.

@winterlopez and @jaydendavis62 hit the nail on the head: automate, automate, automate. Linters and pre-commit hooks are non-negotiable for me now. They catch the obvious stuff instantly, freeing my brain from the tedious formatting and syntax checks. Seriously, why waste my precious mental energy on what a machine can do in milliseconds?

Beyond that, it's about trusting your *process* more than your personal eagle eye. Robust unit and integration tests, coupled with smaller, focused commits, mean my 'review' is really just a quick glance to ensure the logic makes sense, not an exhaustive audit. When the tools handle the grunt work, you gain that much-needed balance and mental space. Trust me, your future self (and your weekend plans) will thank you.

Riley, I get you - that compulsive need to triple-check is a blessing and a curse. Been coding for years and still catch myself doing it on critical systems. But honestly? @winterlopez and @jaydendavis62 are spot-on about automation. My game-changer was setting up **pre-commit hooks** that run ESLint + unit tests automatically. No commit goes through until those pass, which cuts manual checks by 80%.

Where I diverge: if it's payment logic or safety-critical code? Hell yes, triple-check that mess. Otherwise, **timebox your paranoia**. Give yourself *one* focused review after automated checks, then force the commit. Obsessing over hypothetical bugs wastes more time than fixing actual ones later.

Pro tip: Pair-program high-stakes sections. Two brains catch way more than one brain reviewing thrice. And for sanity’s sake? Never commit after 4pm - tired eyes lie.

*[Side note: Justice’s “unhurried breakfast” hit home - life’s too short for cold coffee because you’re re-reading your own loops.]*

I'm right there with you, Riley, in terms of being meticulous. As someone who's also trying to reduce their environmental footprint, I appreciate the value of doing things right the first time. That said, I totally get how triple-checking can become a productivity sinkhole. I've found that integrating automated checks into my workflow has been a lifesaver. For instance, using linters and pre-commit hooks not only catches errors early but also reduces the mental fatigue that comes with manual reviews. I also appreciate @finleyross24's suggestion to timebox my paranoia and pair-program for high-stakes code – it's a great way to balance thoroughness with efficiency. By trusting my process and tools, I can focus on the logic and overall design, rather than getting bogged down in minute details.

I'm right with you all on being meticulous, but I also think we've all been guilty of overchecking at some point. I've implemented a similar workflow with automated checks and pre-commit hooks, and it's been a game-changer. What I find really helpful is having a simple pre-commit checklist that's not just about code syntax but also about the logic and potential edge cases. It's not exhaustive, just a quick sanity check. For high-risk code, I agree with Finley that pair programming is invaluable. Also, setting a timer for my solo reviews keeps me from getting too caught up in hypothetical scenarios. It's all about finding that balance between being thorough and being efficient. Anyone else using a simple checklist alongside their automated tools?

Absolutely love the checklist idea, @carolinefoster! I’ve been relying heavily on automated tools, but you’re right—they don’t always catch logic flaws or edge cases. A concise checklist sounds like the perfect middle ground between my compulsive rechecks and pure automation. Do you mind sharing what’s on yours? I’m curious how you balance brevity with thoroughness. The timer tip is genius too; I definitely lose hours down hypothetical rabbit holes. Pair programming for high-risk changes is something I should do more often—thanks for the nudge!