I have to create Use Case Diagram for Pizza Shop System.
I have doubts whether I fully understand the use case assumption.
Are logging into the system, logging in as an administrator or
creating a new account a use case?
Are the details of the payment method (card or cash) / delivery use
case?
MY USE CASE DIAGRAM:
Related
I am currently working on the use cases for a car sharing app.
The simple diagram for the process of registration looks like this:
At the moment I am stuck with the following scenarios.
When a new customer is registered, a process is carried out at the head office (central)in which the following points are checked
Scenario 1 - Head office side:
1. The identity of new customers is carried out externally with
the post. Two possibilities: presenting the identity card at a post office branchor carrying out by video.
2. The verification of the customer's bank details is carried out externally with the bank.
3.The system will verify that the contact details (email address) are correct
4.the consent to the GTC has been obtained
My sketch for the confirmation process looks like this:
How do I show that the system verifies that the contact details (email address) is correct ? How do I show that consent to the GTC has been given ?
Scenario 2 - Customer's side: A customer can view and edit the information of his registration.
1.Edit profile data
2.Edit contact information
3.Edit bank details.
If information is changed during editing, verification must be carried out again by the head office.
What would the two use case diagrams look like ?
One or two apps?
(Posted before diagrams were added to the question)
Nothing in the narrative says that you need two systems. It's too early to decide about system architecture. You could have the following variants, each with pros and cons:
one and the same system (e.g. post office and customer access it via the web);
one and the same system that is accessible using different components on different devices (e.g. a rich client in the post office, a web interface for the customer on her mac/PC and a mobile app for a customer when using a smartphone);
several independent systems (e.g. a back office in the post-office, and an independent app that would connect not only to the back office, but also to other back-end services e.g. from other companies).
But how do you want to decide before first knowing what is needed and how the needs are related?
First, you have to understand the big picture of what's needed. Focus on the users not on the inner details of your solutions, as explained in the UML specifications:
UseCases are a means to capture the requirements of systems, i.e., what systems are supposed to do. (...)
a UseCase (...) specifies a set of behaviors (...), which yields an observable result that is of value for Actors or other stakeholders (...)
(...) without reference to its internal structure
Look into your narrative to find actors (people, organisation, responsibilities), their goals (what do they need to do?) and how they could relate to each other. Just try a first sketch.
Your current model
(Posted after the diagrams were added)
I still see no reason to go for 2 distinct systems. You are working on a solution for car sharing. It may have different sub-systems/components, but the actors do not care. And neither does your customer. But:
If you'd go for two independent systems, you'd draw two disginct diagrams, and in each diagram you'd have an actor representing the other system that interacts with the system under consideration. As said, this makes sense only if it's an independent system.
In your case, I could imagine this for the bank account verification and the video identity verification: unless you intend to develop your own super-secured AI component capable of doing this, you'd probably outsource this to a specialized company, that may offer this service via an automated API.
The identify verification is at a different level of details than the other use-cases. You may want to show it in a separate diagram, in order not to pollute the main diagram.
And lastly, your second diagram has some issues:
the arrows of extend and include should not following the same direction: the target of an include is the included use case whereas the target of the extend arrow should be the use case that is extended (and not the use case that is extending the normal use case as you have shown).
ID correct and Bank correct are states. Use cases do not show states. The end-state can be specified in the description of the use-case but not in the use-case diagram.
Post office, Bank account, Video seem to be use-cases, but they are not well described.
A possible diagram could therefore be:
Note: I'd personally prefer specialization of Ensure identity. This corresponds more to the reality that there are two very distinct behaviors. But extension is ok.
Just to stress this fact: you do NOT describe a scenario with use cases. A use case is "just" to show the added value a system under consideration delivers to one of its actors. What you are asking is functional decomposition and that's just plain wrong. You would describe a scenario with an activity diagram (or as plain text like in the Cockburn way).
In my application each user can create his own system and add team members to it. Each team member in scope of a system has a certain set of permissions, basing on which system decides if team member can access the functionality.
Some examples are:
Access to analytics board
Access to system configuration utility
Access to team management utility
Access to service handling utility
Each team member can have assigned any combination of these permissions.
I'd like to create an UML use case diagram, but i don't know how to represent use cases which are restricted only to team members that are allowed to use them.
Representing permission is like breaking the generalisation os UML use-case diagrams. You need to write them down in your use case scenario and for UML you can have separate section wise representation.
I don't think that use case diagram is sufficient for your requirements. You are talking about a user who has set of permissions. These permission are variable in time. It doesn’t depend on position (what’s more, we are not talking about being a deputy for a boss who just left for holiday).
In this case I always prepare use case such as Manage Permission and an actor is always a user. Then I make a class diagram where the user/permission model is. Then you have several possibilities how to work with permissions:
In every scenario the first step should be checking the permission to
do this steps.
Every use case has a preconditions related to
permissions.
…
Check the diagram where the simplest example is.
In the model part, I use actors inheritance to model right. For example, the
most simple actor is "user" and it is linked to use case "login" only, it gets the minimum right.
Others actors inherit from it. Like that they all have the right to connect to the system.
The most powerful actor, let say Administrator, inherits from all actors like that it gets all rights.
After you can not translate this in code automatically ... :)
I have created a use case diagram for site similar to oDesk.
Site description: the place, where freelancers can find suitable jobs accordingly to their skills and pricing demands and where employers/clients can find suitable freelancers for their job postings with necessary skills and for stated price.
The goal of the site owner is: get income, by means of taking 10% fee from every payment made from employer/client to freelancer.
Have a look at the link below. Will be happy to hear any comments and advices!
I'm new here, but this question looks suitable for Business Analysts. This diagram does make sense. From my point of view, i would have added a "user" role (generalization of "employer" and "freelancer)". And aligned functions similar to "freelancer" and "employer" with "user" role.
From use full functionality point of view (it is what UseCase defines) your diagram is almost perfect. BUT, remove login usecase (it is not service..no body use system to login. Login is precondition for accessing security website functionality). Separate profile manage, block profile and other administration services (usecase) from the rest and build new diagram for them. There are mix of incompatible use cases at the same place.
Your "Make Payment" use case is off. You have it so that only the Employer doesn't make payments to anyone except possibly himself. Consider making the two types of payment into specializations of Make Payment (remove all the extends and includes except from the Make Payment to the Process Transaction), associating the Employer with the main use case, and associating the Site Owner and Freelancer each with the appropriate specialized use case.
Also, as Vladimir says, you might consider splitting this up into multiple diagrams.
During a registration use case scenario, is the user confirming registration via unique email code part of the registration use case scenario?
The system sends a confirmation email for the user to activate their account.
An onscreen message for the user is displayed.
User activates their account via email code.
Use case ends.
Is 3 part of the use case scenario?
Thank you.
EDIT: I'm sorry I didn't read well the question before.
The answer would be No. Your diagram should include the services or functionalities your system provides, so it should include the use case Registration. The internal steps of this process are not included in this kind of diagrams. For that purposes you'll use sequence diagrams for example...
From developer.com:
Use case: A use case in a use case diagram is a visual representation of a distinct business functionality in a system. The key term here is "distinct business functionality." To choose a business process as a likely candidate for modeling as a use case, you need to ensure that the business process is discrete in nature. As the first step in identifying use cases, you should list the discrete business functions in your problem statement. Each of these business functions can be classified as a potential use case. Remember that identifying use cases is a discovery rather than a creation. As business functionality becomes clearer, the underlying use cases become more easily evident.
I'm just learning about UML and am questioning how to define actors correctly. I know that actors perform role in the system and I don't have a problem determining human actors. My question is how do I decide what non-human, external components are actors on the system.
For example, in a home automation system a homeowner and a system installer would be actors. Would it be correct to name a door sensor or a coffee maker an actor? These components receive signals from the main computer module and use cases could be written for actions taken on them (i.e. turn the coffee maker on/off).
Is the main computer/server the "system" or is the system made up of the collection of the computer/server and all of the components (lighting modules, coffee makers, door sensors)?
I think that you must first define system's boundaries, it will be then more easy to understand external actors but keep in mind that actors usually treated as black boxes.
For example if the automation system finds out that the food supplies are low and need a restock it may initiate an order perhaps on an online service; in this case the online system accepting such orders is an actor, you don't need to know how it will process the order, you as a developer of the automation system need to know it's public interface in order to interact with it.
An actor is someone or something (another system) that interacts with the system you are trying to develop. More formally an actor initiates use cases.
#Stef - An actor can also assist the primary actor to achieve the stated goal of the use case. That would be the case with the online service from your example. The online service wouldn't initiate any use cases here, but in receiving the order, it becomes a secondary actor to the Order Food Supplies use case.