r? @yaahc

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

I haven't tested this Windows. I can rely on CI to do that, right?

I think bors will try on windows, too?
@bors try

⌛ Trying commit c8b9093 with merge f42f7a0...

☀️ Try build successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Build commit: f42f7a0 (f42f7a087b59fa8018216f6fe5ab0bdf1a8f56fb)

⌛ Trying commit c8b9093 with merge b323bb7...

Argh, apparently editing a comment that contains @bors try will retrigger bors, sorry :/

☀️ Try build successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Build commit: b323bb7 (b323bb73ae9d201e09179a486c88994d3b576c7d)

Hmm, it seems the rustfmt commit 5e667d326f929a0770c1e56cd0a921dfb16400e2 has not yet landed inside the rustfmt submodule of the rustc repo.

bors only runs the fmt test on the ubuntu runner. But this test (Clippy Dev Test) is also run in the PR CI.

Temporary this can be changed by removing this line:

After that the fmt test is run as part of the test suite in Clippy Test (bors) on the Windows runner.

r? @matthiaskrgr

reassigning this, since @yaahc stepped down as a reviewer to focus on the error handling project group

@bors try

(let's try flip1995's suggestion)

⌛ Trying commit 7822e6c with merge ca31ddf...

💔 Test failed - checks-action_test

@bors try

(missing rustfmt component)

⌛ Trying commit fded020 with merge a9045b7...

💔 Test failed - checks-action_test

It seems we hit a similar error as in #3118, will try something like #3701 later

Sorry for leaving this unaddressed, there has been a spike in PRs to review and I did not have much time/energy to fight the CI/Windows tandem.

I'll try to find some time in the next couple days, but I would say this is low priority for now.

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #6401) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels:

@rustbot modify labels: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-author

Sorry for having left this aside for so long. 🙏

I think I've managed to reproduce the original error running this on CI on my fork:

error: couldn't read \\?\D:\a\rust-clippy\rust-clippy\tests\ui\..\auxiliary\test_macro.rs: The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect. (os error 123)
    Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 23.21s

     Running `clippy_dev/target\debug\clippy_dev.exe fmt --check`
Error writing files: failed to resolve mod `test_macro`: \\?\D:\a\rust-clippy\rust-clippy\tests\ui\..\auxiliary\test_macro.rs does not exist
error: couldn't read \\?\D:\a\rust-clippy\rust-clippy\tests\ui\..\auxiliary\test_macro.rs: The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect. (os error 123)
rustfmt failed on D:\a\rust-clippy\rust-clippy\tests\ui\implicit_hasher.rs


Error writing files: failed to resolve mod `test_macro`: \\?\D:\a\rust-clippy\rust-clippy\tests\ui\..\auxiliary\test_macro.rs does not exist
Formatting check failed.
rustfmt failed on D:\a\rust-clippy\rust-clippy\tests\ui\implicit_hasher.rs
Run `cargo dev fmt` to update formatting.

error: process didn't exit successfully: `clippy_dev/target\debug\clippy_dev.exe fmt --check` (exit code: 1)

CI logs

It looks like the bug the workaround fixes, right?

Yeah, that looks like it. I guess we can close this again and try in another year.