docs: clarify how to assert absence of function calls using Python AST helper

[tiya-9975]

Checklist:

• I have read freeCodeCamp's contribution guidelines.
• My pull request has a descriptive title.

Closes #1121

Adds documentation explaining how to assert the absence of function calls using the Python AST helper. This helps curriculum authors enforce removal of statements such as print().

[tiya-9975]

Hi, the CI failure seems unrelated to the docs change.

It fails due to Node engine mismatch (Node 22 vs required Node 24):
ERR_PNPM_UNSUPPORTED_ENGINE — Expected >=24.12.0, got 22.21.1

I see Node 24 was recently fixed in #1127, so a re-run of CI should pass.

Thank you!

[Satishchoudhary94]

Yes, the failure is due to Node 22 being used while the dependency requires >=24.12.0. Since Node 24 support was aligned in #1127, a CI re-run should pick up the correct version and pass.

[majestic-owl448]

restarting the tests does not work, I updated the branch

[tiya-9975]

I have updated my branch with upstream main (Node 24) and formatted the file using Prettier.
CI should now pass. Thank you!

[majestic-owl448]

please do not make changes to dependencies in a PR to add info to the docs, dependency updates if needed go in a different PR

if you are trying to do multiple contributions, this is why it's highly suggested to not make PRs from the main branch

[tiya-9975]

Thanks for the guidance. I’ve reverted all dependency and CI changes and kept this PR docs-only as suggested.

[majestic-owl448]

files package.json and pnpm-lock.yaml are still in the PR

[tiya-9975]

Thanks for your patience. I’ve now rewritten the branch so this PR contains only the documentation change and no dependency files.

[Dario-DC]

has_call requires the exact call including arguments. So this should at least include parenthesis -> has_call('print()')

[tiya-9975]

Thank you for pointing that out. I’ve updated the examples to use has_call("print()") and block_has_call("print()") as required by the helper.

[majestic-owl448]

block_has_call does not require the literal call

Suggested change

	assert not Node(code).block_has_call("print()")
	assert not Node(code).block_has_call("print")

[tiya-9975]

Thanks for the clarification. I’ve updated the example so has_call uses "print()" and block_has_call uses "print" as suggested.

[tiya-9975]

Thanks for the detailed reviews and clarifications.

I’ve updated the examples so that:

has_call uses the literal call form ("print()")

block_has_call uses the non-literal form ("print") as intended

The PR is now docs-only, with no dependency or CI changes, and all checks are passing.

Please let me know if anything else needs adjustment.

[Dario-DC]

Thank you for your contribution to the page! 👍
We are happy to accept these changes and look forward to future contributions. 🎉