(Just to note, I made another commit to continue to test that the annotations appear (and don't appear) as expected on added files, and on added, fixed and modified warnings in modified files. It deliberately fails the new-warnings check, and I also marked itDO-NOT-MERGE just to be safe; once this is approved and otherwise ready to merge, I'll drop that commit and then queue it for automerge.)

Since the final changes were just to a comment and a__future__ import, I've dropped the various test commits to confirm various common and edge cases, so this should be ready to merge pending any final comments/suggestions (which hopefully aren't substantial or I'll have to temporarily add them back, heh).

Do we need to backport this?

I was actually just about to comment on this now as I remembered that I'd forgotten to do so yesterday. The same problems this fixes (warning spam, as well as line numbers being off, etc) will be present in the Files Changed views on the 3.12 branch, where the script is present (its not on 3.11).

We will need to backport PR#106460 first though as it makes comprehensive changes to these same files; its backport was deferred to after the reusable docs changes were merged, which they now are, so it seems we should be able to just go ahead with that backport first, and then this should backport cleanly.

(In case you didn't see it, I postedthis reply after the relevant comment chain had already been resolved, which you might find interesting)

I had to manually backport#106460 due to some merge conflicts in the.nitignore, but it should be good to merge as soon as Thomas gets the chance to review it, and then we can merge and backport this (hopefully cleanly).

Alrighty, looks like that backport got in, so I guess we're gogo on this one at last!

Thanks@CAM-Gerlach for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

GH-108127 is a backport of this pull request to the3.12 branch.