The main point behind this request is to add new command line option to JustMockRunner in order to enable profiler without need for being registered, more details about this feature can be found on MSDN at https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee471451(v=vs.100).aspx

If there are more that one mock objects existing in the test, Mock.Assert wrongly succeeds while evaluating arrangements for each mock, but not the very first one. This is a regression compared to an older version from 2012. The following sample demonstrates the case:
public interface IFoo
{
    void Bar();
}

[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
    [TestMethod]
    public void TestMethod1()
    {
        var bar = Mock.Create<IFoo>();
        Mock.Arrange(() => bar.Bar()).OccursOnce();

        var foo = Mock.Create<IFoo>();
        Mock.Arrange(() => foo.Bar()).OccursOnce();

        Mock.Assert(foo); // Would wrongly succeed
        Mock.Assert(bar); // Would fail as expected
    }
}

Creating a share link with Visual Studio Live Share does not work if you have the JustMock profiler enabled. We specifically have to disable the JustMock profiler in order for VS Live Share to create sharing links. This has been reproduced by several different members of our team.

Could this please be looked into? Thanks!

Docker is a container acting like an isolated environment. Research how the JustMock profiler can be registered into such container.
Hosted VSTS should work on the same principle. Research how the registry could be accessed through VSTS extension or other tools.

When using Mock.CreateLike<> we've found that trying to directly mock anything lower than two layers down on a concrete class (e.g. x => x.Layer1.Layer2.Property == "test") throws a NullReferenceException unless the profiler is enabled. It wasn't clear in the exception or the documentation relating to this method that the real issue was the profiler being disabled, and only by trial and error did we find the solution.

If I define a fluent API, I might have an interface such as this:

public interface IRegistrar { 

IRegistrar UsingThis(object someThing);

IRegistrar UsingThat<TThatThing>() }

If I create a mock of this using the default Behaviour.RecursiveLoose and make no arrangements, calls to the methods will return new mocks of the type, rather than the same instance that was called. 

It would be nice to have a behaviour type that can return the same instance (in this case the mocked instance) without having to define a stub for each method call.

My code under test might look like:

IRegistrar reg;

reg

  .UsingThis(new object())

  .UsingThat<int>();

Currently, a test on the second call will fail if written against the mock assigned to 'reg'.

this nuts, forcing me to answer a dialog for JustMock and JustTrace to turn off sending usage to Telerik.  Very poor UX.  Stop doing this.

Resharper 10 code coverage have tests failing when arrange to have JustMock to return values from methods called under test. Perhaps one tool too many manipulating .NET objects behind-the-scenes at a time?

Allow future mocking of an entire class, including a default of DoNothing() for all methods in the class, rather than requiring each method to be future mocked separately.

Currently, there is no out of  the box support for passing "out" and "ref" parameters for nonpublic API.

A class property get wrongly mocked when used as parameter for arranging other class methods. The following sample demonstrates the scenario:

class Foo
{
	public string Prop{ get; set; }

	public void Bar(string val)
	{
	}
}

[TestMethod]
public void Sample()
{
	var sut = Mock.Create<Foo>(Behavior.CallOriginal);

	Mock.Arrange(() => sut.Bar(sut.Prop)).DoNothing();
}

MbUnitContextResolver gets wrongly initialized because of the weak check based on Gallio.Framework.Assertions.AssertionException type presence in the current app domain. Needs to be improved with some additional type check from mbunit assembly, MbUnit.Framework.TestFixtureAttribute for example.

It would be good if we could use named parameters inside Mock.Arrange method.

Mocking an async calls alse triggers hidden mocking of the return type. Depending of the type it might cause unexpected behavior or exception.

Asynchronous test execution might be run in a separate thread (it depends of the environment and it is completely transparent) which causes arrangements to lose their context. That is why the expected mocked return value for DateTime.UtcNow calls the original code and finally the test fails.

I want to be able to arrange the return value of `new` expressions, like Mock.Arrange(() => new FileInfo()).Returns(mockFileInfo).
Then, I expect that `new FileInfo()` will always return my mock instance.