Most changes to Python require a NEWS entry.

Please add it using the blurb_it web app or the blurb command-line tool.

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

I think a test with some special characters would also be useful :)

I think a test with some special characters would also be useful :)

Makes sense.

Thanks for the suggestions. I will add some of those combinations.

I'd also add tests for some edge cases like the empty string (if we want to allow that) and multiple nesting levels e.g. [x][y] or even [x].y[z] to make sure the regex is working as expected.

I'd also add tests for some edge cases like the empty string (if we want to allow that) and multiple nesting levels e.g. [x][y] or even [x].y[z] to make sure the regex is working as expected.

I have added a new nested dictionary to the existing template we use in the test. Added new assertions specifically for the nested cases.

Do you suggest making the cases like the following to the part of the new key added?

'nest2': ['k', ['l', 'm'], 'n'],

Update: Added this anyways.

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 phrase I 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.

@vsajip

I have made the requested changes; please review again.

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@vsajip: please review the changes made to this pull request.

@vsajip
Could you review this PR? I have made the changes requested.

Sorry I've not had time to look at this. Hope to get to it soon.

I'll leave it for the code owner @vsajip to land this :) Thanks for your contribution, @dhuadaar!

Should this be backported?

Perhaps - it's arguable whether it's an enhancement or could have been considered a documentation bug.

Ok; if no backport is needed, we should close the linked issue.