-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 231
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implicit new #80
Comments
Certainly doable, but don't we trying to be too smart with that? As a user I would prefer my unit test to fail in this case. Has a need for that came from your personal experience or somebody asked for that? |
It's just something that I thought about, that you would save tons of |
@eproxus, that would mean: meck:expect(module, ...). I would not need to write meck:new if I used expect on a module? Cool |
This means get rid of the
{not_mocked, Module}
error and just runnew
if there is no Meck process already.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: