Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Recognized GitHub username

We couldn't find a bugs.python.org (b.p.o) account corresponding to the following GitHub usernames:

@AndiDog

This might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in one's b.p.o account settings. This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at this contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

I'm not sure if this would be a beneficial change to the docs. The current examples show the minimal that is needed to run doctest.testmod(). An example that includes the failures is at the end of the documentation and there is other information included in the description of testmod that a user can learn about when they want more info.

@rhettinger, what's your opinion from a teaching perspective?

It’s not strictly incorrect to have doctest always return 0: after all, it ran fine itself, even if not all tests reported success. Things like error return codes or proper stdout/stderr usage become needed for tools used in shell pipelines or test automation (tox or CI).

I think there is a gradient in doctest usage:

• write doctests, run them manually from an interactive interpreter
• add if __name__ == "__main__" with doctest.testmod to make it easier to run the tests
• using a proper test runner like unitttest integration or pytest

The change proposed here would add a step: keep using doctest.testmod instead of a proper runner, but make it play well with shell pipelines. I think it would be fine to add a small paragraph about this, rather than editing existing sample code as in the current diff, to avoid too many details at once. Does that make sense?

The change is supposed to fix the __main__ case (no test runner), and most examples use that case right now. Probably the documentation should remove all running examples and have a new section "How to run" with the different options? (larger effort than what I proposed, but probably helpful to all users)

I understand, but I don’t know if you get my viewpoint 🙁
There isn’t agreement that doctest.testmod in the __main__ case is broken.

I proposed to not change the existing examples, it’s good that these are complete running examples.

I concur that this isn't a useful update to the docs which aim to show how the tools are commonly used. The pattern in the PR is not standard.