Linking Azure Boards Work Item 123 to a GitHub Pull Request Two Ways
You manage projects by using Azure Boards. You manage project code by using GitHub. You have a work item that has an ID of 123. You need to link work item 123 to a new pull request. What are two ways to achieve this goal? Each correct answer presents a complete solution. NOTE: Each correct solution is worth one point.
Community Votes
54% of anonymous learners picked answer AB. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
Azure Boards can link outward through the Development section by pasting the pull request URL, and GitHub can link back by resolving an Azure Boards work item reference such as AB123 in the pull request description, which auto-populates the work item's link.
Projects are managed in Azure Boards while code is managed in GitHub, and work item 123 must be linked to a new pull request. Linking must work across the two systems, so the available approaches either push the link from the Boards side or let GitHub resolve the reference automatically.
Entering the URL of a commit rather than the pull request in the Add link dialog, which creates a link to the wrong object, and pasting a bare work item ID with no prefix into the pull request description, which does not resolve to a Boards work item.
Community Discussion (12 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Two mechanisms connect a Boards work item to a GitHub pull request. From the Boards side, the Development section of work item 123 lets you add a link and paste the pull request URL, which is an explicit link created in Azure Boards. From the GitHub side, adding a Boards work item reference in the pull request description causes GitHub and Azure Boards to resolve the reference and attach the work item to the pull request automatically. Option C, commenting on the work item with the pull request URL, only puts text in a comment field and does not create a structured link, so it does not count. The vote was 50 for A and B and 43 for A and D, making this a close contest. osagiestar and Kalaisuran each supplied the two official Microsoft Learn pages that correspond exactly to options A and B, which is the strongest support for that pairing.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Adding a work item comment that includes the pull request URL (C) is a free-text comment, so it mentions the link without creating the structured work item to pull request relationship that the question is asking for. From work item 123, opening the Links tab, choosing Add link, then Existing item, and entering the URL of the commit (D) selects a commit rather than the pull request, so even though the navigation path in D is otherwise valid, the object being linked is the wrong one. The vote split exists mainly because of a syntax dispute: djhyfdgjk noted the syntax in option B is written backwards and should be AB123 rather than #AB123, and VamshiJupelli reported that in testing only a bare #123 resolved, not #AB123.Community Comment Notes
The community was nearly evenly split, 50 for A and B against 43 for A and D. The A and B case is backed by documentation: osagiestar posted the Microsoft Learn link-to-from-github page for option A, and Kalaisuran posted the auto-complete-work-items-pull-requests page for option B. freddyneen argued for A and D on the grounds that work items belong to project management rather than code management, while conceding that B also works from a developer perspective. VamshiJupelli's field test, that #123 resolves but #AB123 does not, is the strongest argument for D, and djhyfdgjk's observation that the option's syntax is reversed makes B's literal wording imperfect even though the mechanism it names is correct.Official Reference
Related Analysis
Practice All AZ-400 Questions
Access 100 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full AZ-400 Practice Test →