kylejginavan / youtube_it

An object-oriented Ruby wrapper for the YouTube GData API
http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-youtube-library
595 stars 223 forks source link

video_upload getting 'wrong number of arguments (2 for 1)' #181

Closed gigacardoso closed 11 years ago

gigacardoso commented 11 years ago

I'm trying to use this gem to upload videos.

Using this line from the README, or any other of the video_upload for that matter,

client.video_upload("http://media.railscasts.com/assets/episodes/videos/412-fast-rails-commands.mp4", :title => "test",:description => 'some description', :category => 'People',:keywords => %w[cool blah test])

I'm getting the error:

wrong number of arguments (2 for 1)

and the trace shows that it comes from the Read

youtube_it (2.0.0) lib/youtube_it/chain_io.rb:66:in read' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http/generic_request.rb:202:incopy_stream' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http/generic_request.rb:202:in send_request_with_body_stream' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http/generic_request.rb:132:inexec' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http.rb:1404:in block in transport_request' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http.rb:1403:incatch' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http.rb:1403:in transport_request' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http.rb:1376:inrequest' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http.rb:1369:in block in request' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http.rb:852:instart' /home/user/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.0.0-p247/lib/ruby/2.0.0/net/http.rb:1367:in request' faraday (0.8.7) lib/faraday/adapter/net_http.rb:75:inperform_request' faraday (0.8.7) lib/faraday/adapter/net_http.rb:38:in call' faraday (0.8.7) lib/faraday/response.rb:8:incall' youtube_it (2.0.0) lib/youtube_it/middleware/faraday_authheader.rb:6:in `call'

any clue on why this happens?

gigacardoso commented 11 years ago

don't know why but version 2.0.0 was being used instead of 2.3.2