I’m confused by a couple of things:

• Why pass a function to reject, if the point is to make sure that it doesn't get called?
• Instead of expect with 0, I always used stub(MyMock, :fun, fn ... -> flunk("Shouldn't have been called") end). Is reject really clearer than that?

• Personally I use it for cases where the common setup uses stub_with but I want to verify that a specific function doesn't get called in a test
• Using stub + flunk is better than expect (because at least it doesn't have the conflict between expecting and not expecting in the naming), but I think reject would be a little less boilerplate than having to manually specify flunk

(accidentally closed from mobile finger slip)

Sorry, I had a change of mind and I think we should call it deny. :D I think it sounds stronger?

In any case, I am waiting on @whatyouhide's acceptance. :D

Renamed to deny/3

Personally I use it for cases where the common setup uses stub_with but I want to verify that a specific function doesn't get called in a test

Right, but this doesn't explain why we need to pass a function in, rather than the arity as an integer only. I see the function as more confusing than useful?

this doesn't explain why we need to pass a function in, rather than the arity as an integer only

Maybe I'm missing your point, deny/3 actually expects the arity instead of a function, so we don't need to pass a function in (that was one of the points of making this, because using other methods you have to come up with a fun even if you know that it will never get called)

Man I gotta be honest I didn't even look at the code. I was discussing out of #145, which showed this code

# Passing a fun
refute(MockWeatherAPI, :get_temp, fn _ -> {:ok, 30} end)

🤦 Sorry!

💚 💙 💜 💛 ❤️