Fixed all non-passing tests in call_spec.

[mvastola]

The only non-passing tests remaining (though there are admittedly a lot, I think they're all related) are in wrapper_spec.rb.
Partially fixes Issue #36

The tests I fixed were failing because they relied on the exported files from pdftk being exactly identical to a file contained within the gem. This can't ever be guaranteed to be platform/version-independant since even an inconsistency in the order in which the PDFs array of properties enumerates itself (which could be caused by something as simple as a compiler optimization) would cause the test to fail. I parsed the data in these failing tests with a regex and converted them to a hash before comparing and the tests then matched.

---

Also, @tcocca, I am interested in working more on this project and fixing it up to get it live on RubyGems. I think I can figure out the other testing bugs. I only had a few hours to play with it right now and got pretty far so I thought I'd make this pull request.

Is there any way I could contact you so we can chat briefly at some point if you'd be interested?

[tcocca]

@mvastola thanks so much for the help on this, however, are these lines necessary?

s.add_development_dependency 'travis'
s.add_development_dependency 'byebug'

I think they are causing issues with the travis build: https://travis-ci.org/tcocca/active_pdftk/builds/41839419

Thanks,
~ Tom

[mvastola]

@tcocca Oops. No, you should disappear 'travis', at least.
Byebug might be useful for development -- it's the equivalent for the 'ruby-debugger' gem for Ruby 2.0+, but it's not strictly 'necessary' for development, but -- then again -- necessary is relative.

[mvastola]

Do you want me to remove the travis line (and possibly byebug too) and resubmit?

[tcocca]

Please remove both and re-submit the pull, and I'll see what happens with
travis.

Thanks.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Michael Vastola notifications@github.com
wrote:

Do you want me to remove the travis line (and possibly byebug too) and
resubmit?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#45 (comment).