Update doc examples to use newer drafts' validators.

Obviously what was here works fine, but better to show
the examples with a more recent spec.

Author: Julian

docs/errors.rst

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ raised or returned, depending on which method or function is used.
     .. attribute:: validator
 
         The name of the failed `validator
-        <https://json-schema.org/draft-04/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.5>`_.
+        <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/json-schema-validation.html#name-a-vocabulary-for-structural>`_.
 
     .. attribute:: validator_value
 
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ These attributes can be clarified with a short example:
         }
     }
     instance = [{}, 3, "foo"]
-    v = Draft7Validator(schema)
+    v = Draft202012Validator(schema)
     errors = sorted(v.iter_errors(instance), key=lambda e: e.path)
 
 The error messages in this situation are not very helpful on their own.
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ For clarity's sake, the given instance has three errors under this schema:
 
 .. testcode::
 
-    v = Draft3Validator(schema)
+    v = Draft202012Validator(schema)
     for error in sorted(v.iter_errors(["spam", 2]), key=str):
         print(error.message)
 
@@ -350,14 +350,14 @@ to guess the most relevant error in a given bunch.
 
 .. doctest::
 
-        >>> from jsonschema import Draft7Validator
+        >>> from jsonschema import Draft202012Validator
         >>> from jsonschema.exceptions import best_match
 
         >>> schema = {
         ...     "type": "array",
         ...     "minItems": 3,
         ... }
-        >>> print(best_match(Draft7Validator(schema).iter_errors(11)).message)
+        >>> print(best_match(Draft202012Validator(schema).iter_errors(11)).message)
         11 is not of type 'array'
 
 
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ to guess the most relevant error in a given bunch.
     ...     },
     ... }
     >>> instance = {"name": 123, "phones": {"home": [123]}}
-    >>> errors = Draft7Validator(schema).iter_errors(instance)
+    >>> errors = Draft202012Validator(schema).iter_errors(instance)
     >>> [
     ...     e.path[-1]
     ...     for e in sorted(errors, key=exceptions.relevance)

docs/faq.rst

@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ be valid under the schema.)
 
     .. testcode::
 
-        from jsonschema import Draft7Validator, validators
+        from jsonschema import Draft202012Validator, validators
 
 
         def extend_with_default(validator_class):
@@ -173,21 +173,21 @@ be valid under the schema.)
             )
 
 
-        DefaultValidatingDraft7Validator = extend_with_default(Draft7Validator)
+        DefaultValidatingValidator = extend_with_default(Draft202012Validator)
 
 
         # Example usage:
         obj = {}
         schema = {'properties': {'foo': {'default': 'bar'}}}
-        # Note jsonschem.validate(obj, schema, cls=DefaultValidatingDraft7Validator)
+        # Note jsonschem.validate(obj, schema, cls=DefaultValidatingValidator)
         # will not work because the metaschema contains `default` directives.
-        DefaultValidatingDraft7Validator(schema).validate(obj)
+        DefaultValidatingValidator(schema).validate(obj)
         assert obj == {'foo': 'bar'}
 
 
 See the above-linked document for more info on how this works, but
 basically, it just extends the :validator:`properties` validator on
-a `jsonschema.Draft7Validator` to then go ahead and update all the
+a `jsonschema.Draft202012Validator` to then go ahead and update all the
 defaults.
 
 .. note::
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ defaults.
         }
 
         obj = {}
-        DefaultValidatingDraft7Validator(schema).validate(obj)
+        DefaultValidatingValidator(schema).validate(obj)
         assert obj == {'outer-object': {'inner-object': 'INNER-DEFAULT'}}
 
     ...but if you don't provide a default value for your object, then
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ defaults.
 
         del schema["properties"]["outer-object"]["default"]
         obj2 = {}
-        DefaultValidatingDraft7Validator(schema).validate(obj2)
+        DefaultValidatingValidator(schema).validate(obj2)
         assert obj2 == {} # whoops
 
 

docs/validate.rst

@@ -93,14 +93,16 @@ existing `TypeChecker` or create a new one. You may then create a new
 
     def is_my_int(checker, instance):
         return (
-            Draft3Validator.TYPE_CHECKER.is_type(instance, "number") or
+            Draft202012Validator.TYPE_CHECKER.is_type(instance, "number") or
             isinstance(instance, MyInteger)
         )
 
-    type_checker = Draft3Validator.TYPE_CHECKER.redefine("number", is_my_int)
+    type_checker = Draft202012Validator.TYPE_CHECKER.redefine(
+        "number", is_my_int,
+    )
 
     CustomValidator = validators.extend(
-        Draft3Validator,
+        Draft202012Validator,
         type_checker=type_checker,
     )
     validator = CustomValidator(schema={"type" : "number"})
@@ -132,14 +134,14 @@ which each included validator class implements.
 
 
 For example, if you wanted to validate a schema you created against the
-Draft 7 meta-schema, you could use:
+Draft 2020-12 meta-schema, you could use:
 
 .. testcode::
 
-    from jsonschema import Draft7Validator
+    from jsonschema import Draft202012Validator
 
     schema = {
-        "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+        "$schema": Draft202012Validator.META_SCHEMA["$id"],
 
         "type": "object",
         "properties": {
@@ -148,7 +150,7 @@ Draft 7 meta-schema, you could use:
         },
         "required": ["email"]
     }
-    Draft7Validator.check_schema(schema)
+    Draft202012Validator.check_schema(schema)
 
 
 .. _validating formats:
@@ -168,7 +170,7 @@ validation can be enabled by hooking in a format-checking object into an
     >>> validate(
     ...     instance="-12",
     ...     schema={"format" : "ipv4"},
-    ...     format_checker=draft7_format_checker,
+    ...     format_checker=draft202012_format_checker,
     ... )
     Traceback (most recent call last):
         ...