[PATCH 6 of 9 V6] bundle2: add `bookmarks` part handler

[Pierre-Yves David]

On 11/11/2016 11:50 AM, Stanislau Hlebik wrote:
> I think we can but it would require a bit of rewriting in unbundlerecords.

I don't think we need to change anything in the API, you can just access 
the previously recorded data and updated them.

Note that this is probably minor and we could move forward without that. 
We probably need bookmark movement tracking on the transaction level 
(for the hooks, etc) anyway and that might be enough.

What do you think ? on my part I think having a unified bookmark record 
would be more useful but keeping thing simple is also valuable.

Cheers,

> On 11/10/16, 5:39 PM, "Pierre-Yves David" <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 11/02/2016 10:56 AM, Stanislau Hlebik wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 10/14/16, 2:28 AM, "Pierre-Yves David" <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>     >
>     >     What is your plan regarding hooks execution here?
>     >
>     > I planned to add it when I’m going to work on push
>     >
>     >     How do you handle cases where the part exist multiple time in the bundle ?
>     >
>     > Is there a problem with multiple parts? `op.records.add('bookmarks', bookmarks)` appends bookmarks from each part so it should work fine.
>
>     Yes but it adds them as multiple items instead of a unified dictionnary,
>     this seems strange. Could we have them as a single dict instead?
>
>     --
>     Pierre-Yves David
>
>

-- 
Pierre-Yves David