I have a question regarding modeling on an Activity Diagram that has been bothering me for some time and I was not able to find any answers / Convention anywhere.
Here is an example to better understand my question:
Let say that I have two class named "flat" and "house". both are a generalization of the class "housing".
housing contain an attribute "residents" for the person living in it.
flat contain an attributes "floor" that says at which floor the flat is.
Here is the class diagram:
In an activity diagram, I want to represent the action of giving persons a housing.
this action can take either house or flat as input (so the use of "housing" type for the input pin is correct I think) as well as an undefined number of people.
I want this action to give an updated house or flat as output (not an updated housing as this would mean that information specific to the house or flat would be lost.
I don't really know if I must create two actions (one for house and another for flats) or if there is a way to reuse the action for both class and have a correct output out of it.
Here is the activity Diagram:
My question is: how to represent in an activity diagram, an action that is the same for different type of Object flows as input, and that give the updated Object flow as output (that may be therefore of different type)?
nb:
all type of object flow are class and inherit from a same other class.
I'm representing this in modelio but first had this issue in Cameo.
I'm Trying to fit as best as I can within the rules of UML Language.
Cameo is right in rejecting this model. Give Flat Floor expects a Flat and will not work with a House, but Assign Resident to Housing could return a House. I know, in your context it can only return a Flat, but how should the tool know that?
The correct way to capture this fact would be to add a postcondition to Activity Assign Resident to Housing that states that the type of the input and output pin will be the same.
However, it would be really hard to define a complete set of compatibilty rules that takes into account all the global and local pre- and postconditions and the tools would also be hard pressed to validate a model according to these rules. Therefore the UML specification choose the easy road and simply doesn't allow to connect the pins.
The solution is to use the transformation property of the ObjectFlow. Just assign an OpaqueBehavior that casts the Type House to the Type Flat. Cameo will then accept the model. It is the modelers responsibility to ensure, that this cast will always work, since no exception handling can be defined here. Maybe this should be documented with a local postcondition.
In your specific example there is an even easier solution: simply fork the ObjectFlow of Type Flat and omit the OutputPin of Assign Resident to Housing.
As a side note: Due to a bug in Cameo, you can change the type of the OutputPin to a more specific Type than that of the ActivityParameter. This is correct for InputPins, but should be the opposite for OutputPins. You could use this to let the Parameter be of type House, but the OutputPin-Type would be Flat.
The two flows (top object and lower control) in the blue frame could stay as they are. Give flat floor would commence only when it receives a Flat object and the control token is sent. In order to make the right action sort of optional I would just use the object flow, thus only triggering when a Flat object is passed. That would just be enough and no additional control flow is needed.
To make things clear I would also add a guarded flow from the Assign action to an exit reading [ house was assigned ] or the like.
Related
The principle of always valid domain model dictates that value object and entities should be self validating to never be in an invalid state.
This requires creating some kind of wrapper, sometimes, for primitive values. However it seem to me that this might break the ubiquitous language.
For instance say I have 2 entities: Hotel and House. Each of those entities has images associated with it which respect the following rules:
Hotels must have at least 5 images and no more than 20
Houses must have at least 1 image and no more than 10
This to me entails the following classes
class House {
HouseImages images;
// ...
}
class Hotel {
HotelImages images;
}
class HouseImages {
final List<Image> images;
HouseImages(this.images) : assert(images.length >= 1),
assert(images.length <= 10);
}
class HotelImages {
final List<Image> images;
HotelImages(this.images) : assert(images.length >= 5),
assert(images.length <= 20);
}
Doesn't that break the ubiquitous languages a bit ? It just feels a bit off to have all those classes that are essentially prefixed (HotelName vs HouseName, HotelImages vs HouseImages, and so on). In other words, my value object folder that once consisted of x, y, z, where x, y and z where also documented in a lexicon document, now has house_x, hotel_x, house_y, hotel_y, house_z, hotel_z and it doesn't look quite as english as it was when it was x, y, z.
Is this common or is there something I misunderstood here maybe ? I do like the assurance it gives though, and it actually caught some bugs too.
There is some reasoning you can apply that usually helps me when deciding to introduce a value object or not. There are two very good blog articles concerning this topic I would like to recommend:
https://enterprisecraftsmanship.com/posts/value-objects-when-to-create-one/
https://enterprisecraftsmanship.com/posts/collections-primitive-obsession/
I would like to address your concrete example based on the heuristics taken from the mentioned article:
Are there more than one primitive values that encapsulate a concept, i.e. things that always belong together?
For instance, a Coordinate value object would contain Latitude and Longitude, it would not make sense to have different places of your application knowing that these need to be instantiated and validated together as a whole. A Money value object with an amount and a currency identifier would be another example. On the other hand I would usually not have a separate value object for the amount field as the Money object would already take care of making sure it is a reasonable value (e.g. positive value).
Is there complexity and logic (like validation) that is worth being hidden behind a value object?
For instance, your HotelImages value object that defines a specific collection type caught my attention. If HotelImages would not be used in different spots and the logic is rather simple as in your sample I would not mind adding such a collection type but rather do the validation inside the Hotel entity. Otherwise you would blow up your application with custom value objects for basically everything.
On the other hand, if there was some concept like an image collection which has its meaning in the business domain and a set of business rules and if that type is used in different places, for instance, having a ImageCollection value object that is used by both Hotel and House it could make sense to have such a value object.
I would apply the same thinking concerning your question for HouseName and HotelName. If these have no special meaning and complexity outside of the Hotel and House entity but are just seen as some simple properties of those entities in my opinion having value objects for these would be an overkill. Having something like BuildingName with a set of rules what this name has to follow or if it even is consisting of several primitive values then it would make sense again to use a value object.
This relates to the third point:
Is there actual behaviour duplication that could be avoided with a value object?
Coming from the last point thinking of actual duplication (not code duplication but behaviour duplication) that can be avoided with extracting things into a custom value object can also make sense. But in this case you always have to be careful not to fall into the trap of incidental duplication, see also [here].1
Does your overall project complexity justify the additional work?
This needs to be answered from your side of course but I think it's good to always consider if the benefits outweigh the costs. If you have a simple CRUD like application that is not expected to change a lot and will not be long lived all the mentioned heuristics also have to be used with the project complexity in mind.
I have three classes one is called
WorkCoordinator and it calls different service classes depending on an event passed to it, so if the event is trackIssue there is a TrackService class that handles some operations specifically for tracking and there is also a Track object. So you could have the following
WorkCoordinator -- (track issue) --> TrackService (has a list of Track objects)
How would you correctly represent these three in a UML diagram ? where everything starts with the workcoordinator which uses a TrackService and TrackService may have a function like add(Track track), where you would pass it a Track object to add to an array list within it say:
private ArrayList<Track> tracks;
and as add gets called, then a track is added to tracks.
Appreciate any insights, I was thinking something like this but may be totally wrong.
I have three classes one is called
Contrarily to an operation a class cannot be called, but it can be used.
WorkCoordinator -- (track issue) --> TrackService
when the event string is trackIssue the class WorkCoordinator uses the class TrackingService, but how ? Because in your diagram the class TrackingService only has the operation add that means that operation is called, even I have some doubt about that, more the fact we don't know from where the instance of Track given in argument comes from. If an other operation is called add it in the diagram.
About your diagram :
the role of the line between WorkCoordinator and TrackingService is unknown as it is, and then invalid. Because of the attribute trackingService probably you wanted to also show it as a relation, in that case the relation must completed.
TrackingService has two lists of Track, one though the attribute trackItems and an other one through the relation tracks. This is probably not what you wanted, and trackItems must be renamed tracks or the reverse.
to show the same thing through an attribute and a relation is legal in UML, but quite heavy because the reader must check they are the same thing, I encourage you to use only one of them, and to favor the relation when both classes are drawn.
your aggregation says TrackingService is composed of Track, are you sure this is the case and an aggregation must be used ?
How would you correctly represent these three in a UML diagram ?
The class diagram does not indicate at all that when the processed event is trackIssue the operation add (or an other) is applied on trackingService (with the right argument). Of course you can add a note to say that, but that note is a free text and only human can understand it.
To show that in a diagram you can use a sequence diagram or an activity diagram, depending on what you want to show.
The sequence diagram showing what happens during the execution of process can be (supposing a new instance of Track is created to be given in argument to add) :
event is supposed to be the argument of process, to name the instance of TrackingService I used trackingService being the name of the attribute, and item represents the created instance of Track to use it in the message add.
All of that seems vague, but this is normal because an interaction is not a behavior, and a sequence diagram focuses on message interchange between lifelines.
If you want to fully model the behavior of the operation process without ambiguity you can use an activity, and the diagram can be :
Additional remarks :
An event is generally much more than a name like trackIssue, so the parameter of process is not a string or that string is a complex form.
Track has getter/setter for the id but not for the name, seems strange. Are you sure the id is not only set (with name) when an instance is created ?
I am looking for a way to modelize ethereum smart contracts interaction using a modeling language like UML.
I have the following serivce Contract:
contract ServiceContract {
constructor (address _storeC, address _quizC, address _signC) {
StorageContract storeC = StoreContract(_storeC);
QuizContract quizC = QuizContract(_quizC);
SignatureContract signC = SignatureContract(_signC);
}
function storeData (bytes32 data) public {
storeC.save(data);
}
function getAnswer( bytes32 question) public constant returns (bytes32) {
return quizC.get(question);
}
function sign (bytes32 data) public returns (bytes32) {
return signC.sign(data);
}
}
I modelized it with this class diagram, is it correct?
[Edited for extra clarification]
Modelling a system is describing it in a formal way using a modelling language, and in some cases following some common guidelines. In this case you suggest the use of UML (See UML Specification).
UML diagrams can be divided into three categories:
Structural: The common structure, the values, the classifiers and the packages are in this category
Behavioral: The common behavior, the actions, state machines, the activities and the interactions are in this category.
Suplemental: The use cases, the deployments and the information flows are in this category.
As a modeler you decide which diagrams do you you need for what target you want to apply.
In your question you say that you are looking for a way to modelize an interaction. That is within the behavioral category. However you provide a sample code and a proposed class diagram, which is within the structural category.
That being said, is it your proposed diagram correct? I would say that it is inaccurate and incomplete (but not necessarily incorrect). Let me explain this a bit further.
In your proposed diagram you have four classes: ServiceContract, StorageContract, QuizContract and SignatureContract. You have drawn a relationship between the classes that is known as a dependency. And this dependency is of a specific type: usage (represented by the «use» keyword). What does this mean in UML?
A dependency in UML is defined as a relation where "the semantics of the clients are not complete without the suppliers" (Section 7.7.3.1 of the UML specification). Moreover, a usage dependency is defined as a relation where "one NamedElement requires another NamedElement (or set of NamedElements) for its full implementation or operation" (Section 7.7.3.2).
Hence, if we apply those defintions to your proposed diagram, you may read the relation between the ServiceContract and the StorageContract as "ServiceContract uses StorageContract". But nothing else. With this diagram you don't know how ServiceContract uses StorageContract, if it uses more than one instance of StorageContract, and so on.
Since you know how those classes are related, you should use a more accurate and complete diagram.
The first step is to use an association instead of a dependency. In UML an association is defined as "a semantic relationship that can occur between typed instances". And you know the semantic relationship between the classes that you are modelling in your class diagram. Therefore it makes more sense to use an association.
An association is represented with a solid line (indeed the UML specification says that it may be drawn as a diamond, but for binary associations it says that normally it is drawn just with a solid line). So let's start changing your diagram to the new one. In the next figure you can see the four classes with the association relationship (still incomplete):
Now that we have the association, we need to define it further. Has the association a name? Can the association be read in both ways? Do we know the multiplicity values for each end of the association? Do the ends of the associations have contraints?
In this example we don't need a name for the association, it seems that it can be read in both ways, and also that the multiplicity values are exactly 1 for all the ends. Then we do not to add anything to the diagram related to these questions. But what about the constraints?
Let's take a look at the source code. When you put this:
contract ServiceContract {
constructor (address _storeC, address _quizC, address _signC) {
StorageContract storeC = StoreContract(_storeC);
QuizContract quizC = QuizContract(_quizC);
SignatureContract signC = SignatureContract(_signC);
}
}
you can express it as "the ServiceContract has (owns) a property named storeC that is of a type of StoreContract", and so on. An ownership in an association is represented by a small filled circle (called a dot), at the point where the line meets the Classifer that is owned. Also you can add the name of the property that holds the ownership (Section 11.5.4). At this point the diagram is like this:
(See the answer from Thomas Kilian)
Since we cannot infer the visibility of the properties from the source, we can just let it as undefined (otherwise we can use a + sign before the name of the property for a public property, a - sign for a private property, a # for a protected property, and a ~ for a package).
Also we can show the properties within the Classifier for ServiceContract instead of at the end of the owned Classifier in the association. This will look like this:
Both styles are allowed by the UML specification (Section 9.5.3), and it also does not enforce any convention. However it mentions the convention for general modelling scenarios "that a Property whose type is a kind of Class is an Association end, while a property whose type is a kind of DataType is not".
This diagram is correct in the sense that it complies with the UML specification, and that it describes a system in which you have:
A Classifier named ServiceContract that owns three properties:
A Property named storeC whose type is a Classifier named StorageContract.
A Property named quizC whose type is a Classifier named QuizContract.
A Property named signC whose type is a Classifier named SignatureContract.
And remember, it is your choice, as a modeler, if this is enough for your target or not.
From the source I can say that the previous diagram is still incomplete and inaccurate. Why?
Because the source includes three Operations (the functions) that are not represented in the diagram. This can be improved in terms of completeness.
Because you cannot say from the diagram if the Classifiers that are owned by the ServiceContract are owned to group together a set of instances of the owned Classifiers or not. And given the case, if the owned Classifiers share the same scope or not. This can be improved in terms of accuracy.
First we are going to add the operations (the functions) to the diagram:
[NOTE: You may also add the _constructor_ to the operations.]
I guess that the functions are public, so I have included the + modifier at the beginning of each operation name.
Now for the accuracy, it seems to me that the ServiceContract groups together the StorageContract, the QuizContract and the SignatureContract in order to provide a common Classifier to access to certain operations (functions). If that is the case, then we are talking about aggregation. In UML aggregation is defined as an association where "one instance is used to group together a set of instances" (Section 9.5.3).
An aggregation can be of two types: shared (or just commonly known as aggregation from previous versions of the specification), and composite (or just commonly known as composition from previous versions of the specification).
The UML specification provides a more or less specific semantics for what it means for an aggregation to be of the type composite: "the composite object has responsibility for the existence and storage of the composed objects".
Let's say that in your case the existence and storage of the StorageContract, the QuizContract and the SignatureContract is responsability of the ServiceContract. Then in that case you have a composite aggregation, that is represented by a black diamond:
And it is read as "ServiceContract is composed by an owned property of classifier type StorageContract called storeC", and so on.
Keep in mind that using a composite type of aggregation you are saying that the ServiceContract object is responsible for the existence and storage. That means that whenever an instance of the ServiceContract is removed/destroyed, the associated StorageContract, QuizContract and SignatureContract must be destroyed also.
If that is not the case, and given that still the assocation matches the aggregation definition, then the only other option available is that the aggregation must be shared. The UML specification explictly does not provide a precise semantics of what a shared aggregation is, leaving the application area and the modeler with the responsability of giving those semantics.
So, if the StorageContract, the QuizContract, and the SignatureContract exist independently of the ServiceContract, and if you agree that the ServiceContract aggregates those objects according to definition given in the UML specification, you must use a shared aggregation.
A shared aggregation is represented by a hollow diamond at the end of the association of the Classifier that aggregates other Classifiers. And this it's how it looks:
And this diagram can be read as:
There are four Classifiers: ServiceContract, StorageContract, QuizContract and SignatureContract.
ServiceContract aggregates three owned properties:
storeC, of type StorageContract.
quizC, of type QuizContract.
signC, of type SignatureContract.
ServiceContract has one constructor that requires three arguments:
_storeC of type address.
_quizC of type address.
_signC of type address.
ServiceContract has three public functions:
storeData, that requires one argument of type bytes32 called data and returns nothing.
getAnswer, that requires one argument of type bytes32 called question and returns a bytes32 data type.
sign, that requires one argument of type bytes32 called data and returns a bytes32 data type.
Keep in mind that maybe for your desired target this final diagram is too detailed. It is your responsability as modeler to decide wether to include some details or not into the diagram.
You simply have associations to these three classes:
(I just drew a single relation)
The role name to the right tells in conjunction with the dot that it's a owned property of the class to the left. Not sure about the visibility (if that's private per default replace the + with a -).
While it may be goodness to spend some time to learn what exact arrow should used for particular Solidity relationship in UML (inheritance, composition etc), general trend is to let standard tool to care about this.
There is sol2uml UML generator https://github.com/naddison36/sol2uml
that is already used on https://etherscan.io
e.g. for USDT
https://etherscan.io/viewsvg?t=1&a=0xdAC17F958D2ee523a2206206994597C13D831ec7
(See image below)
So don't spend time manually drawing lines, use wiser tools to do it quicker for you.
Let's say two domain objects: Product and ProductVariety (with data such as color, size etc). The relationship between these two is one-to-many. Conceptually saying in the domain driven design, the ProductVariaty should be a value object, which is not the same object once its data is changed. From the implementation point of view, however, it is better to have some sort identification for the ProductVariaty so that we know which ProductVariety is selected and so on. Is an only solution to convert it to an entity class?
The following is a code segment to illustrate this situation.
#Embeddable
class ProductVariety {...}
#Entity
class Product {
#ElementCollection
private Set<ProductVariety> varities;
...
}
Conceptually saying in the domain driven design, the ProductVariaty should be a value object, which is not the same object once its data is changed
That's not quite the right spelling. In almost all cases (many nines), Value Object should be immutable; its data never changes.
Is an only solution to convert it to an entity class?
"It depends".
There's nothing conceptually wrong with having an identifier be part of the immutable state of the object. For example, PANTONE 5395 C is an Identifier (value type) that is unique to a particular Color (value type).
However, for an identifier like PANTONE 5395 C to have value, it needs to be semantically stable. Changing the mapping of the identifier to the actual color spectrum elements destroys the meaning of previous messages about color. If the identifier is "wrong", then the proper thing to do is deprecate the identifier and nominate a replacement.
Put simply, you can't repaint the house by taking the label off the old paint can and putting it on a new one.
In that case, there's no great advantage to using the identifier vs the entire value object. But its not wrong to do so, either.
On the other hand, if you are really modeling a mapping, and you want to follow changes that happen over time -- that's pretty much the definition of an entity right there.
What it really depends on is "cost to the business". What are the trade offs involved, within the context of the problem you are trying to solve?
Note: if you really do find yourself in circumstances where you are considering something like this, be sure to document your cost benefit analysis, so that the next developer that comes along has a trail of breadcrumbs to work from.
Intro
When designing UML activity diagrams I often encounter a rather simple problem for which I have to draw a rather complicated solution. I'm looking for an UML conform shortcut or more simple solution for the following problem.
Problem
Lets assume we have a class Parent with associations to different Children:
And we have an analog Constalation with the class Result and three chidren Result Part A, etc.
Now I want to refine an activity, which accepts a Parent object as input and produces an Result as output:
In the desired refinement, I want to I want to access the children or create the result from the result parts.
Current Solution
If I want to access the children or create the result from the result parts, I always have to introduce extra activities for those rather simple tasks:
Question
Are there any shortcut or simplification here, to access, extract or merge the children of an object? The desired Solution should be legal standard UML.
Something as simple like this would be nice:
UML does not define complex object creation element. If you need to construct result object which is composition of child objects, you have to present action. You should define action with resulting pin of composed type and input pins of child object types for each one. Action can start execution only if all input pins contain expected object.
For separation of child object from composed object use transformation as it is described in Waog's answer.
In your current solution example remove join element before merge result Children action, and connect all object nodes to this action. Remove extract input Children action and use transformation.
Answer on how to split objects
I found an answer on how to split a composed object in Martin Fowlers UML distilled myself, after getting a hint from #xmojmr
The book states:
Source: UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language
By Martin Fowler - on Google Books
I still don't know, if it's allowed to omit thos transformation-notes and just draw the pins and transitions!?
Missing Answer on how to merge objects
I'm still missing the answer on how to merge objects to a composed objects without introducting a merge-activity.