Fixes two warning

[brianberlin]

warning: redefining module DepOneLicense.MixProject (current version defined in memory)
  test/fixtures/deps/dep_one_unrecognized_license_file/mix.exs:1

warning: Mix.Dep.loaded/1 is deprecated. Mix.Dep.loaded/1 was private API and you should not use it
  lib/licensir/scanner.ex:35

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21

• 3 of 3 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.2%) to 95.833%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 19:	0.2%
Covered Lines:	46
Relevant Lines:	48

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• 27 unchanged lines in 4 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-58.7%) to 36.957%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
lib/mix/tasks/licenses.ex	1	50.0%
lib/licensir/guesser.ex	1	88.89%
lib/licensir/file_analyzer.ex	9	0.0%
lib/licensir/scanner.ex	16	15.0%
<!--	Total:	27		-->

Totals
Change from base Build 19:	-58.7%
Covered Lines:	17
Relevant Lines:	46

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 20

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• 27 unchanged lines in 4 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-58.7%) to 36.957%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
lib/mix/tasks/licenses.ex	1	50.0%
lib/licensir/guesser.ex	1	88.89%
lib/licensir/file_analyzer.ex	9	0.0%
lib/licensir/scanner.ex	16	15.0%
<!--	Total:	27		-->

Totals
Change from base Build 19:	-58.7%
Covered Lines:	17
Relevant Lines:	46

---

💛 - Coveralls

[unnawut]

Thank you! Before I merge, do you have any idea why these 2 lines of change could drop the code coverage by 58.7%?

[brianberlin]

It looks like travis ran with elixir 1.5 and 1.6. It's not until 1.7 that Mix.Dep.load_on_environment/1 is available. I'm not sure about the travis config change and I don't really like the extra conditional to call the correct function. What do you think?

[unnawut]

Given that this is a dev tool, I don't mind too much about that extra condition. We could remove it when 1.6 is a little older.

Thank you for your help!

[unnawut]

Released with v0.4.1 (although the latest v0.4.2 now due to a problem with hex publishing). Thanks again!