GeezerVison

This fix is straightforward enough and is a supplement to #106815, so I skipped the news. If @carljm thinks the other way, I can add the news. Also do we want a test for it? It requires some delicate file line number conflict from two files.

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.

This fix is straightforward enough and is a supplement to #106815, so I skipped the news. If @carljm thinks the other way, I can add the news. Also do we want a test for it? It requires some delicate file line number conflict from two files.

Oops, this comment crossed with my review. I think skipping news is fine, but I think we should have a test, even though it requires additional files. Subtle cases like this will break again in future refactors if there's no test. If it's worth fixing, it's worth testing.

Fixed the style and added the test case - used a temporary directory for the files so I don't need to add extra files to the source code. Without the new check, the code would've found the first class as the line number of method borrowed from the other module happens to be inside the first class defined in inspect_actual.

Confirmed that the test would fail without the new check.