[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

login to lonked in is failing with Mechanize

Rita Amritkar

12/28/2007 10:27:00 AM

Hi all,

I am trying to login to linked in but it is failing with Mechanize.
code is,


agent = WWW::Mechanize.new
page = agent.get("https://www.linkedin...)
link = page.links.find {|l| l.text =~ /Sign in/}
page = agent.click(link)
form = page.forms.first
form.fields.find {|f| f.name == "session_login" }.value = "linkedin_id"
form.fields.find {|f| f.name == "session_password" }.value = "password"
page = agent.submit(form, form.buttons.first)
puts page.body

I am getting the same sign in page.

What can be wrong with this piece of code?
Any help will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....
6 Answers

TheInquirer

12/9/2013 11:50:00 AM

0

On 12/9/2013 6:56 PM, auwe digidauw wrote:
> TheInquirer<always@ask.questions> wrote in news:l83nbu$nod$2@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> but since it's the voters who vote and (supposedly) determine who gets
>> erected to powder ... why do (at least 60%) voters still allow the
>> pappist Leegime to stay in powder?
>>
>> why are they so daft?
>
>
> Your Highness,


harlo! who originally used the word "daft"? do you know?

auwe digidauw

12/9/2013 12:44:00 PM

0

TheInquirer <always@ask.questions> wrote in news:l84ap2$k18$2@dont-
email.me:

> On 12/9/2013 6:56 PM, auwe digidauw wrote:
>> TheInquirer<always@ask.questions> wrote in news:l83nbu$nod$2@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> but since it's the voters who vote and (supposedly) determine who gets
>>> erected to powder ... why do (at least 60%) voters still allow the
>>> pappist Leegime to stay in powder?
>>>
>>> why are they so daft?
>>
>>
>> Your Highness,
>
>
> harlo! who originally used the word "daft"? do you know?

your highness, perhaps the majority public

love to be consistent with the claim errr vote they've made


ps : .... was just trying to get you back on track

TheInquirer

12/9/2013 1:06:00 PM

0

On 12/9/2013 8:44 PM, auwe digidauw wrote:

> love to be consistent

before you even judge whether people are consistent,
do you check the facts and your own perception first?

[btw, the topic here is "RIOTS" and "PAP Leegime]

try not to divert topic to yourself or even myself.


--
Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think I am stupid,
you have already proven that you are stupid, not me. If
you don't know the answer, can you please "pass" to other
people to answer? thanks.

auwe digidauw

12/9/2013 1:09:00 PM

0

TheInquirer <always@ask.questions> wrote in news:l84f76$ec4$1@dont-
email.me:

> before you even judge whether people are consistent,

your highness why would I make judgment

while the facts talk ? its vivid and bold

no perceptions needed

please stop presuming others making judgment

TheInquirer

12/9/2013 2:23:00 PM

0

On 12/9/2013 9:09 PM, auwe digidauw wrote:

can you please stick to the topic of RIOTS?

--
Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
business. I ask, you answer. If you think I am stupid,
you have already proven that you are stupid, not me. If
you don't know the answer, can you please "pass" to other
people to answer? thanks.

auwe digidauw

12/9/2013 3:33:00 PM

0

TheInquirer <always@ask.questions> wrote in news:l84jog$9s5$1@dont-
email.me:

> can you please stick to the topic of RIOTS?

what riots ? no riots in my neighborhood so far