A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phraseI have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

This needs a test. The wording of the NEWS entry should also be significantly improved, it's highly unclear at present.

copy that, will try to make it better thanks for the review

This needs a test. The wording of the NEWS entry should also be significantly improved, it's highly unclear at present.

A

Done sorry for my English...the better news help with LLM

Please be aware of our policy on use of LLMs and 'generative AI':https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/generative-ai/

Please be aware of our policy on use of LLMs and 'generative AI':https://devguide.python.org/getting-started/generative-ai/

thank you for let me know that.seems ok here, if not I will change to my own words
Thank you for the kindness again

Assistance with writing comments, especially in a non-native language

changed it to my own

@adqm Would you care to review this, considering your recent work withhelp?

Thanks@yihong0618! I think this is indeed an improvement to the interactivehelp prompt.

I have a few suggestions, though (one behavioral change, a few stylistic things with the test cases, and a suggested rephrasing of the NEWS entry).

Of course,@ZeroIntensity and@AA-Turner should feel free to chime in if they disagree with any of my suggestions.

Thank you its very helpful but two things seem we need to disscuss

1. do we need to handle empty string in this patch, since I wonder it is another issue and break change
2. is it needs to add a helper function for two tests in unittest, the code is quite simple and right, but I am not sure it worth

Thanks again

@adqm Hi the tests code changes but the strip one seems not right in my env

Can you clarify the way in which you think this is not working? For example, an input that you provided that gave different output from expected?

For me, it seems to work (I tested this before sending my first review). Both an empty input and an input consisting only of spaces result in just returning me to a new prompt, and asking for help about other things still gives me appropriate help output.

in my side “ ” in help mode
with or without this patch are the same
it shows the str help

Yes, if you wrap it in quotes you will get thestr help. But if you just type some number of spaces with no quotation marks it should be ignored and return you to the prompt. Same goes for length-0 strings; with quotes the input isn't ignored (we see the usage suggestions), but without quotes (i.e., just hitting Enter at the prompt) it just returns you to the prompt.

That feels like the expected behavior to me. I think the handling of" " (with the quotation marks) is surprising, but changing that does feel like a separate issue.

Yes, if you wrap it in quotes you will get thestr help. But if you just type some number of spaces with no quotation marks it should be ignored and return you to the prompt. Same goes for length-0 strings; with quotes the input isn't ignored (we see the usage suggestions), but without quotes (i.e., just hitting Enter at the prompt) it just returns you to the prompt.

That feels like the expected behavior to me. I think the handling of" " (with the quotation marks) is surprising, but changing that does feel like a separate issue.

Get it you are right will change it thank you very much

Two minor suggestions, OK otherwise.

A

checked its better thanks the hint

will fix the test

One more thought about the updated test cases.

of course its better will commit and check