Investigate if we can/should handle Attachment links/Work Item links in a more general fashion

[Alexander-Hjelm]

Following up on #1063

Here is the CorrectDescription method for reference:

jira-azuredevops-migrator/src/WorkItemMigrator/WorkItemImport/WitClient/WitClientUtils.cs

Lines 442 to 480 in 3361bb8

	public bool CorrectDescription(WorkItem wi, WiItem wiItem, WiRevision rev, IsAttachmentMigratedDelegate<string, string, bool> isAttachmentMigratedDelegate)
	{
	if (wi == null)
	{
	throw new ArgumentException(nameof(wi));
	}
	if (wiItem == null)
	{
	throw new ArgumentException(nameof(wiItem));
	}
	if (rev == null)
	{
	throw new ArgumentException(nameof(rev));
	}
	string description = wi.Fields[WiFieldReference.WorkItemType].ToString() == "Bug" ? wi.Fields[WiFieldReference.ReproSteps].ToString() : wi.Fields[WiFieldReference.Description].ToString();
	if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(description))
	return false;
	bool descUpdated = false;
	CorrectImagePath(wi, wiItem, rev, ref description, ref descUpdated, isAttachmentMigratedDelegate);
	if (descUpdated)
	{
	if (wi.Fields[WiFieldReference.WorkItemType].ToString() == "Bug")
	{
	wi.Fields[WiFieldReference.ReproSteps] = description;
	}
	else
	{
	wi.Fields[WiFieldReference.Description] = description;
	}
	}
	return descUpdated;
	}

You can see that the description field seems to be hard coded for various Work Item Types. If the WI Type name is "Bug", then it seems to switch over to using ReproSteps instead of Description. This causes issues if there are any other HTML fields than Description/Bug. Is there an existing way to handle custom HTML fields, or does this feature need to be built?

[cacti77]

My suggestion would simply be to respect the mapping between the types and fields specified by the user in their config json file, rather than simply assume certain WITs use certain fields. I was forced to migrate from Jira to ADO at short notice and had little knowledge of the ADO WITs and their standard field names (e.g., that Bugs used Repro Steps rather than Description; see #1063). If instead you do want to assume specific field types in target WITs then this ought to be clearly documented somewhere.