Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Unfortunately we couldn't find an account corresponding to your GitHub username on bugs.python.org (b.p.o) to verify you have signed the CLA (this might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in your b.p.o account settings). This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for your contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

Since there is no decision reached on the issue and mailing list I am not sure if this needs a separate PR. Perhaps this could be done as part of the PR where warning is raised and all the relevant call sites are also changed with several places where this function is used.

@tirkarthi this pr is regarding an individual use of the mktemp() call, not to suppress it completely. The recommendation in the stdlib is to replace calls to mktemp() with one of the alternatives
The pydoc module uses mktemp() for some local caching. This was the only occurrence in the stdlib.

The linked BPO is incorrect, this should probably have it's own bpo

@fuzzygwalchmei, please sign the CLA as per the above message. Also, I agree with @tonybaloney that this should have its own bug tracker issue. Thank you!

@fuzzygwalchmei, thank you for signing the CLA. Were you able to create a new bug tracker issue for this? If so, please update the title to reflect the new ticket number.

I'm going to close this PR as inactive.