Should stubs be `protected` too?

[randycoulman]

As I was reading through the code, I noticed that while expect wraps the replacement implementation with protected, stub (and stub_with) do not.

Is there a reason for this decision? Would you consider a PR that wraps stub's code with protected?

I'm thinking of an implementation like this:

def stub(mock, name, code) do
    arity = :erlang.fun_info(code)[:arity]

    hammox_code =
      case fetch_typespecs_for_mock(mock, name, arity) do
        # This is really an error case where we're trying to mock a function
        # that does not exist in the behaviour. Mox will flag it better though
        # so just let it pass through.
        [] -> code
        typespecs -> protected(code, typespecs, arity)
      end

    Mox.stub(mock, name, hammox_code)
  end

I'm not sure what a protected implementation for stub_with would look like, though, so ideas are welcome there.

Thanks for this awesome library!

[msz]

Yes! This was an oversight, because I barely ever use stub and stub_with.

I think stub should work the same as expect, as you've already done in #58. Thanks!

For stub_with, we probably can't defer to Mox directly. We likely need to copy the Mox implementation and make it stub with protected functions instead.

[msz]

I'll close this now as stub has a PR in #58 and I created an issue for stub_with in #59!