Results of weekly scheduled smoke test

[github-actions]

Detected 1 ESLint reports and/or crashes.
Scanned 5686 repositories.

Rules:

• unable-to-parse-rule-id

Click to expand

Rule: unable-to-parse-rule-id

• Message: Error while loading rule 'react/boolean-prop-naming': React pragma comments, is not a valid identifier Occurred while linting /github/workspace/node_modules/eslint-remote-tester/.cache-eslint-remote-tester/microsoft/fluentui/scripts/tasks/src/swc.ts
• Path: microsoft/fluentui/scripts/tasks/src/swc.ts
• Link

Error: Error while loading rule 'react/boolean-prop-naming': React pragma comments, is not a valid identifier
Occurred while linting /github/workspace/node_modules/eslint-remote-tester/.cache-eslint-remote-tester/microsoft/fluentui/scripts/tasks/src/swc.ts
    at Object.getFromContext (/github/workspace/lib/util/pragma.js:63:11)
    at Function.componentRule (/github/workspace/lib/util/Components.js:284:29)
    at createRuleListeners (/github/workspace/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:910:21)
    at /github/workspace/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1081:110
    at Array.forEach (<anonymous>)
    at runRules (/github/workspace/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1018:34)
    at Linter._verifyWithoutProcessors (/github/workspace/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1370:31)
    at Linter._verifyWithConfigArray (/github/workspace/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1822:21)
    at Linter.verify (/github/workspace/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1452:65)
    at Linter.verifyAndFix (/github/workspace/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:2083:29)

[ljharb]

Duplicate of #3632.

ping @AriPerkkio; the smoke test script didn't detect the previously created issue (perhaps because i renamed it) and made this duplicate instead.

[AriPerkkio]

Renaming the issue must have caused that. Here is the query that is used to detect earlier issues: https://github.com/AriPerkkio/eslint-remote-tester-run-action/blob/7e2cf82a70a3916018e98ef061a5a823f4d2fbcc/src/github-client.ts#L75-L80

[ljharb]

@AriPerkkio perhaps a better heuristic would be to look for issues created by the bot, with the expected format in the OP?

[AriPerkkio]

Yes, this could be improved. Maybe the bot could use a smoke-test label and look for those. The message body can change so matching that by pattern might be difficult.

I'll keep this in mind and implement some day.