gh-101100: Fix Sphinx warnings in `argparse` module (#103289)

Co-authored-by: C.A.M. Gerlach <CAM.Gerlach@Gerlach.CAM>
Co-authored-by: Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti@gmail.com>

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 7 deletions

diff --git a/Doc/howto/argparse.rst b/Doc/howto/argparse.rst
index f682587..52e98fa 100644
--- a/Doc/howto/argparse.rst
+++ b/Doc/howto/argparse.rst
@@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
+.. _argparse-tutorial:
+
 *****************
 Argparse Tutorial
 *****************
 
 :author: Tshepang Mbambo
 
-.. _argparse-tutorial:
+.. currentmodule:: argparse
 
 This tutorial is intended to be a gentle introduction to :mod:`argparse`, the
 recommended command-line parsing module in the Python standard library.
@@ -12,7 +14,7 @@ recommended command-line parsing module in the Python standard library.
 .. note::
 
    There are two other modules that fulfill the same task, namely
-   :mod:`getopt` (an equivalent for :c:func:`getopt` from the C
+   :mod:`getopt` (an equivalent for ``getopt()`` from the C
    language) and the deprecated :mod:`optparse`.
    Note also that :mod:`argparse` is based on :mod:`optparse`,
    and therefore very similar in terms of usage.
@@ -137,13 +139,13 @@ And running the code:
 
 Here is what's happening:
 
-* We've added the :meth:`add_argument` method, which is what we use to specify
+* We've added the :meth:`~ArgumentParser.add_argument` method, which is what we use to specify
   which command-line options the program is willing to accept. In this case,
   I've named it ``echo`` so that it's in line with its function.
 
 * Calling our program now requires us to specify an option.
 
-* The :meth:`parse_args` method actually returns some data from the
+* The :meth:`~ArgumentParser.parse_args` method actually returns some data from the
   options specified, in this case, ``echo``.
 
 * The variable is some form of 'magic' that :mod:`argparse` performs for free
@@ -256,7 +258,7 @@ Here is what is happening:
 
 * To show that the option is actually optional, there is no error when running
   the program without it. Note that by default, if an optional argument isn't
-  used, the relevant variable, in this case :attr:`args.verbosity`, is
+  used, the relevant variable, in this case ``args.verbosity``, is
   given ``None`` as a value, which is the reason it fails the truth
   test of the :keyword:`if` statement.
 
@@ -299,7 +301,7 @@ Here is what is happening:
   We even changed the name of the option to match that idea.
   Note that we now specify a new keyword, ``action``, and give it the value
   ``"store_true"``. This means that, if the option is specified,
-  assign the value ``True`` to :data:`args.verbose`.
+  assign the value ``True`` to ``args.verbose``.
   Not specifying it implies ``False``.
 
 * It complains when you specify a value, in true spirit of what flags
@@ -698,7 +700,7 @@ Conflicting options
 
 So far, we have been working with two methods of an
 :class:`argparse.ArgumentParser` instance. Let's introduce a third one,
-:meth:`add_mutually_exclusive_group`. It allows for us to specify options that
+:meth:`~ArgumentParser.add_mutually_exclusive_group`. It allows for us to specify options that
 conflict with each other. Let's also change the rest of the program so that
 the new functionality makes more sense:
 we'll introduce the ``--quiet`` option,