Generic field support

[kwk]

Currently the backend has places in which work item fields are treated by their name and not their type. This makes it hard to add support for fields that are similar in type but have a different name. This is especially true for a lot of fields from the new scrum template. To give an example: we can perfectly handle a work item's description field using markdown and preview, but we cannot handle a field like steps-to-reproduce in a Bug work item, simply because it is different.

[jarifibrahim]

To give an example: we can perfectly handle a work item's description field using markdown and preview, but we cannot handle a field like steps-to-reproduce in a Bug work item, simply because it is different.

@kwk Why can't we handle steps-to-reproduce similar to description? Steps-to-reproduce would be part of description, right? It isn't a seperate entity.

Can you please add another example of why do we need this change? I do not understand.

[kwk]

@jarifibrahim essentially any field that has a "complicated" type (e.g. lists and markdown fields) is currently handled by name and not by type. So all the special behavior is solely driven by a field's name which makes it impossible to re-use that logic in fields with the same type.

And no, the steps-to-reproduce is actually a standalone field.