Koin: Can't use named definition and default together

[Sloy]

Describe the bug
Coming from Dagger and migrating our app to Koin I've found a scenario that doesn't seem to work with Koin. I'm not sure if it's intended or it's a bug, I didn't find anything about it in the documentation.

Koin allows us to have multiple definitions of the same type by setting a name. But it fails when we have both named and not-named definitions. Here's a simple test which reproduces the issue:

To Reproduce

    @Test
    fun named_vs_default() {
        startKoin(listOf(
                module {
                    single(name = "Foo") { MyDependency() }
                    single { MyDependency() }
                }
        ))

        get<MyDependency>(name = "Foo") // Works fine
        get<MyDependency>() // Error
    }

The error produced when resolving the dependency without name is:

Error while resolving instance for class '[...].MyDependency' - error: org.koin.error.DependencyResolutionException: Multiple definitions found for type 'class [...]Test$MyDependency' - Koin can't choose between :
    Single [name='Foo',class='[...].MyDependency']
    Single [name='MyDependency',class='[...].MyDependency']
    Check your modules definition, use inner modules visibility or definition names. 

Expected behavior
I would a behavior similar to Dagger's: When requesting the dependency without name, it should use the default definition.
If this is an intended behavior, I would expect Koin to not accept the definition and fail when loading the modules. Or at least be mentioned in the docs.

Koin project used and used version :
koin-android version 1.0.1

[Sloy]

As a workaround we just added a "default" name to the default dependencies we had.

[arnaudgiuliani]

The second one get<MyDependency>(), is a global lookup about your dependency. Then you should use the default name for this component (I think it should be MyDependency, check your logs).

[Sloy]

Yes, according to the logs Koin is assigning "MyDependency" as the default name, so I need to request the instance passing that String as the name.

But from my point of view that's inconsistent with the definition. Since I defined no name in the declaration, I would expect to not use any name for resolving it either. Right?

[mtpc]

Yep, having the same issue, having to specifically add a "default" name to every module declarations and dependency lookups (get, inject) just to avoid conflict with the root namespace is kinda annoying.

[arnaudgiuliani]

Resolved in next 1.1 that come back to simpler modules & binding like in your case.