Autodoc: code block is rendered incorrectly

[prajwalch]

Zig Version

0.14.0-dev.1510+fb0028a0d

Steps to Reproduce and Observed Behavior

I have a function like this:

/// Appends the new argument to the list of arguments.
///
/// **NOTE:** It returns an `error.DuplicatePositionalArgIndex` when attempting
/// to append two positional arguments with the same index. See the examples below.
///
/// ## Examples
///
/// ```zig
/// var app = App.init(allocator, "myapp", "My app description");
/// defer app.deinit();
///
/// var root = app.rootCommand();
/// try root.addArg(Arg.booleanOption("version", 'v', "Show version number"));
///
/// var test = app.createCommand("test", "Run test");
/// try test.addArg(Arg.positional("FILE", null, null));
/// ```
///
/// Appending two positional arguments with the same index.
///
/// ```zig
/// var app = App.init(allocator, "myapp", "My app description");
/// defer app.deinit();
///
/// var root = app.rootCommand();
/// try root.addArg(Arg.positional("FIRST", null, 1));
/// // Returns `error.DuplicatePositionalArgIndex`.
/// try root.addArg(Arg.positional("SECOND", null, 1));
/// ```
pub fn addArg(self: *Command, arg: Arg) !void { ... }

When I generate and look at the documentation page, I got:

Another example

/// Appends multiple arguments to the list of arguments.
///
/// ## Examples
///
/// ```zig
/// var app = App.init(allocator, "myapp", "My app description");
/// defer app.deinit();
///
/// var root = app.rootCommand();
/// try root.addArgs(&[_]Arg {
///     Arg.singleValueOption("firstname", 'f', "First name"),
///     Arg.singleValueOption("lastname", 'l', "Last name"),
/// });
///
/// var address = app.createCommand("address", "Address");
/// try address.addArgs(&[_]Arg {
///     Arg.singleValueOption("street", 's', "Street name"),
///     Arg.singleValueOption("postal", 'p', "Postal code"),
/// });
/// ```
pub fn addArgs(self: *Command, args: []const Arg) !void {
    for (args) |arg| try self.addArg(arg);
}

Expected Behavior

I expected correct rendering.

[rohlem]

Right now I couldn't find it, but I remember a comment from andrew that doctests should be preferred to code blocks in doc comments, since they also appear in documentation but are additionally run as tests making them easier to stay in sync with changes in the implementation.
This also generates an "Example Usage" section designed specifically for this, f.e. example in std.Build.dirnameAllowEmpty.

[prajwalch]

I am ok with the doctests but embedding the code block in the docstring is common and should be supported.