I've done similar things before in Bugzilla, and the solution I found was not to implement hierarchical "story bugs" or the like; we decided as well that that would cause confusion and was simply too complicated for what we wanted. The solution I've used before was simply to put the User Story number in the description for the bug; you can throw a link in there as well, to make it easier to dereference. It's a bit patchworkish, but it works pretty well.
I would say, that if your user stories need more than one bug case - they are too big. With good abstraction of the required functionality, you can split your user stories to a smaller ones, which require only one case per story, and then plan and proceed that way.
We have tried to use the approach @McWafflestix describes, with links from the cases to the official (wiki) document of the user story, but after some time we found, that creating smaller user stories is better - it also leads to a better application design, because each user story is implemented as abstracted as possible, providing better testability and maintainability of the code.
Whether or not use of dependency links in Bugzilla are used for story tracking, I strongly recommend use of a keyword on your stories. We use 'story'. Use of a keyword allows the flexibility of easily tracking stories vs. bugs in product trees. I'd also recommend use of time tracking in the Bugzilla installation; even if time is only tracked on stories.
发布评论
评论（3）
我之前在 Bugzilla 中做过类似的事情，我发现的解决方案不是实现分层的“故事错误”之类的； 我们还认为这会引起混乱，而且对于我们想要的东西来说太复杂了。 我之前使用的解决方案只是将用户故事编号放在错误的描述中； 您也可以在其中添加一个链接，以便更轻松地取消引用。 虽然有点拼凑，但效果很好。
I've done similar things before in Bugzilla, and the solution I found was not to implement hierarchical "story bugs" or the like; we decided as well that that would cause confusion and was simply too complicated for what we wanted. The solution I've used before was simply to put the User Story number in the description for the bug; you can throw a link in there as well, to make it easier to dereference. It's a bit patchworkish, but it works pretty well.
我想说，如果您的用户故事需要多个错误案例 - 它们就太大了。 通过对所需功能的良好抽象，您可以将用户故事拆分为较小的故事，每个故事仅需要一个案例，然后按这种方式进行计划和继续。
我们尝试使用方法@McWafflestix 描述了从案例到用户故事的官方（wiki）文档的链接，但一段时间后我们发现，创建较小的用户故事更好 - 它还会带来更好的应用程序设计，因为每个用户故事都是实现的尽可能抽象，提供更好的代码可测试性和可维护性。
I would say, that if your user stories need more than one bug case - they are too big. With good abstraction of the required functionality, you can split your user stories to a smaller ones, which require only one case per story, and then plan and proceed that way.
We have tried to use the approach @McWafflestix describes, with links from the cases to the official (wiki) document of the user story, but after some time we found, that creating smaller user stories is better - it also leads to a better application design, because each user story is implemented as abstracted as possible, providing better testability and maintainability of the code.
无论 Bugzilla 中的依赖链接是否用于故事跟踪，我强烈建议在您的故事中使用关键字。 我们使用“故事”。 使用关键字可以灵活地轻松跟踪产品树中的故事和错误。 我还建议在 Bugzilla 安装中使用时间跟踪； 即使时间只在故事中被追踪。
Whether or not use of dependency links in Bugzilla are used for story tracking, I strongly recommend use of a keyword on your stories. We use 'story'. Use of a keyword allows the flexibility of easily tracking stories vs. bugs in product trees. I'd also recommend use of time tracking in the Bugzilla installation; even if time is only tracked on stories.