gh-118912: Remove description of issue fixed in 3.5 from autospeccing guide (#119232)

* Remove description of issue fixed in 3.5 from autospeccing guide

* Make autospeccing note text more succint and lint whitespace

* Add linting changes (missed in last commit)

---------

Co-authored-by: Carol Willing <carolcode@willingconsulting.com>

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 32 deletions

diff --git a/Doc/library/unittest.mock.rst b/Doc/library/unittest.mock.rst
index 0c1cecf..d8ba24c 100644
--- a/Doc/library/unittest.mock.rst
+++ b/Doc/library/unittest.mock.rst
@@ -2584,40 +2584,16 @@ called incorrectly.
 
 Before I explain how auto-speccing works, here's why it is needed.
 
-:class:`Mock` is a very powerful and flexible object, but it suffers from two flaws
-when used to mock out objects from a system under test. One of these flaws is
-specific to the :class:`Mock` api and the other is a more general problem with using
-mock objects.
-
-First the problem specific to :class:`Mock`. :class:`Mock` has two assert methods that are
-extremely handy: :meth:`~Mock.assert_called_with` and
-:meth:`~Mock.assert_called_once_with`.
-
-    >>> mock = Mock(name='Thing', return_value=None)
-    >>> mock(1, 2, 3)
-    >>> mock.assert_called_once_with(1, 2, 3)
-    >>> mock(1, 2, 3)
-    >>> mock.assert_called_once_with(1, 2, 3)
-    Traceback (most recent call last):
-     ...
-    AssertionError: Expected 'mock' to be called once. Called 2 times.
-
-Because mocks auto-create attributes on demand, and allow you to call them
-with arbitrary arguments, if you misspell one of these assert methods then
-your assertion is gone:
-
-.. code-block:: pycon
-
-    >>> mock = Mock(name='Thing', return_value=None)
-    >>> mock(1, 2, 3)
-    >>> mock.assret_called_once_with(4, 5, 6)  # Intentional typo!
+:class:`Mock` is a very powerful and flexible object, but it suffers from a flaw which
+is general to mocking. If you refactor some of your code, rename members and so on, any
+tests for code that is still using the *old api* but uses mocks instead of the real
+objects will still pass. This means your tests can all pass even though your code is
+broken.
 
-Your tests can pass silently and incorrectly because of the typo.
+.. versionchanged:: 3.5
 
-The second issue is more general to mocking. If you refactor some of your
-code, rename members and so on, any tests for code that is still using the
-*old api* but uses mocks instead of the real objects will still pass. This
-means your tests can all pass even though your code is broken.
+    Before 3.5, tests with a typo in the word assert would silently pass when they should
+    raise an error. You can still achieve this behavior by passing ``unsafe=True`` to Mock.
 
 Note that this is another reason why you need integration tests as well as
 unit tests. Testing everything in isolation is all fine and dandy, but if you