test/unit/code_object/provider/yard/docstring_test.rb in inch-0.5.0.rc2 vs test/unit/code_object/provider/yard/docstring_test.rb in inch-0.5.0.rc3

@@ -77,11 +77,53 @@
     assert docstring.contains_code_example?
     assert docstring.mentions_return?
     assert docstring.describes_return?
   end
 
+  it "should understand 'Returns nil.'" do
+text = <<-DOC
+[...]
+Returns nil.
+DOC
+    docstring = described_class.new(text)
+    assert docstring.describes_return?
+  end
 
+  it "should understand 'Returns nil.' without fullstop and in lowercase" do
+text = <<-DOC
+[...]
+returns nil
+DOC
+    docstring = described_class.new(text)
+    assert docstring.describes_return?
+  end
+
+  it "should understand 'Returns nothing.'" do
+text = <<-DOC
+[...]
+Returns nothing.
+DOC
+    docstring = described_class.new(text)
+    assert docstring.describes_return?
+  end
+
+  it "should understand 'Returns nothing.' without fullstop and in lowercase" do
+text = <<-DOC
+[...]
+returns nothing
+DOC
+    docstring = described_class.new(text)
+    assert docstring.describes_return?
+  end
+
+  it "should understand 'Returns ...' with a visibility modifier in front of it" do
+    text = "Public: Returns the Integer color."
+    docstring = described_class.new(text)
+    assert docstring.mentions_return?
+    assert docstring.describes_return?
+  end
+
   #
   # PARAMETER MENTIONS
   #
 
 
@@ -94,10 +136,10 @@
     refute docstring.mentions_parameter?(:format)
     refute docstring.contains_code_example?
   end
 
 
-  it "should work 2" do
+  it "should work 2 if correct" do
 text = <<-DOC
 Just because format is mentioned here, does not mean
 the first parameter is meant.
 DOC
     docstring = described_class.new(text)