A few individuals at my work have come together to form a group whose goal is to analyze the benefits of implementing some Agile software development / project management principles.
我工作的一些人聚集在一起组成了一个小组,其目标是分析实施敏捷软件开发/项目管理原则的好处。
As a developer, I see great benefit in User Stories. We're looking to put together an information radiator that can be used for monitoring stages of the current release and planning future releases. I'd like to use User Stories for this process.
作为开发人员,我看到了用户故事的巨大好处。我们正在寻找一个信息散热器,可用于监控当前版本的阶段并规划未来版本。我想在这个过程中使用用户故事。
Right now, we're using Bugzilla for issue tracking. Most release planning is done using bugs from this system. The use of Bugzilla will probably not change. It provides most of what we need at the right cost ($0).
现在,我们正在使用Bugzilla进行问题跟踪。大多数发布计划都是使用此系统中的错误完成的。 Bugzilla的使用可能不会改变。它以合理的成本($ 0)提供我们所需的大部分内容。
One concern is the mapping of User Stories to bugs. Release management is currently done using bug numbers. The problem is that one User Story could include three bugs or vice-versa.
一个问题是用户故事到错误的映射。发布管理目前使用错误号完成。问题是一个用户故事可能包含三个错误,反之亦然。
In the scenario of having multiple reported bugs for a single User Story, one idea is to have a User Story Bug that spells out the story and set dependencies on child bugs that make up that story. I'm worried this may end up being too complex and create confusion among stakeholders, development, and QA. Also, it will clutter Bugzilla quite a bit.
在针对单个用户故事报告多个错误的情况下,一个想法是拥有一个用户故事错误,用于说明故事并设置构成该故事的子漏洞的依赖关系。我担心这可能会导致过于复杂,并在利益相关者,开发和QA之间产生混淆。此外,它会使Bugzilla混乱不堪。
Has anyone already been down this road? If so, what have you done? Should I push to abandon the idea of User Stories in Bugzilla? Is there a simpler solution?
有没有人走过这条路?如果是这样,你做了什么?我是否应该在Bugzilla中放弃用户故事的想法?有更简单的解决方案吗?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
任何想法将不胜感激。
3 个解决方案
#1
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.
我之前在Bugzilla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”之类的东西;我们也决定这会造成混乱,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bug的描述中;你也可以在那里放一个链接,以便更容易解除引用。它有点拼凑,但效果很好。
#2
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.
我会说,如果你的用户故事需要不止一个bug案例 - 它们太大了。通过对所需功能的良好抽象,您可以将用户故事分成较小的用户故事,每个故事只需要一个案例,然后按照这种方式进行规划和进行。
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.
我们尝试使用@McWafflestix描述的方法,从案例到用户故事的官方(维基)文档的链接,但经过一段时间我们发现,创建较小的用户故事更好 - 它还导致更好的应用程序设计,因为每个用户故事都尽可能抽象地实现,从而提供更好的代码可测试性和可维护性。
#3
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.
无论是否使用Bugzilla中的依赖关系链接进行故事跟踪,我强烈建议您在故事中使用关键字。我们使用'故事'。使用关键字可以灵活地跟踪故事与产品树中的错误。我还建议在Bugzilla安装中使用时间跟踪;即使时间只跟踪故事。
#1
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.
我之前在Bugzilla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”之类的东西;我们也决定这会造成混乱,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bug的描述中;你也可以在那里放一个链接,以便更容易解除引用。它有点拼凑,但效果很好。
#2
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.
我会说,如果你的用户故事需要不止一个bug案例 - 它们太大了。通过对所需功能的良好抽象,您可以将用户故事分成较小的用户故事,每个故事只需要一个案例,然后按照这种方式进行规划和进行。
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.
我们尝试使用@McWafflestix描述的方法,从案例到用户故事的官方(维基)文档的链接,但经过一段时间我们发现,创建较小的用户故事更好 - 它还导致更好的应用程序设计,因为每个用户故事都尽可能抽象地实现,从而提供更好的代码可测试性和可维护性。
#3
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.
无论是否使用Bugzilla中的依赖关系链接进行故事跟踪,我强烈建议您在故事中使用关键字。我们使用'故事'。使用关键字可以灵活地跟踪故事与产品树中的错误。我还建议在Bugzilla安装中使用时间跟踪;即使时间只跟踪故事。