Taken that there is another basic flow and carwash is already an alternative flow:
A1 : Check cars to be washed
A1.1 The system searches the car in the garage system whether it needs to be washed or not
A1.2 The system found the cars and gives the cars status = 'to wash'
(When step A1.1 does not find the car, it should check the parking
system before the status = 'to investigate') I describe this part in the Special requirements part of my Use Case template.
A2 (or A1.1?): Check parkingspot system
A2.1 The system checks the cars in the parking system with status 'to wash'
So in this case A1 and A2 needs to be checked before it gets = 'to
investigate'
The struggle:
I am struggling with the fact that my alternative flow 2 is on paper the process after step A1.1 of alternative flow 1 and it feels like it is an alternative flow of alternative flow 1 because it checks another system when it couldn't find data during step A1.1. Is it a problem to model it like this while there is also a step A1.2?
How can I model a process like that in an activity diagram? Or is it ok to model it as A1 and A2 (even when A2 is a process which take place after step A1.1 and there is also a step A1.2)?
from your last remark :
The preconditions: we know we had a car with number GJ35X for example and we want to find it, only we dont know whether it is in the garage system or in the parking spot system. It needs to go to investigate status when we can not find it in both systems
the activity manages just one car and can be :
Related
I'm trying to draw UML state diagram for vending machine, maybe its basic but im a beginner and havent found the appropriate solution on internet
Task: - the vending machine receives 1,2 and 5 $, the price of drink is 2 $
- it dispenses the drink if enough money is entered and refunds change
- machine has power on and power off)
I marked each state and transitions the numbers (STATES = s1,2 ..., TRANSITIONS = p1,2 ...), to make it easier to answer without drawing
(e.g. "p1 is wrong, there should be written this" etc)
Here is my diagram:
Questions:
Does it eventually return to IDLE - which seems to me more logical -
or it must go to the final state (rounded black point) as power off?
Or can there be two final states, so the S5 goes to another final state?
should it be after P3 or P4 maybe two branches?
maybe a new branch where the exact price amount is inserted (so there is no need for refund )
if so, where to put it?
If I understand the principle, on the arrows there should be written in this form - correct?
trigger event
[condition if it exists] /
action
Is there any basic errors I made?
Thanks in advance, I appreciate any feedback.
You can have as many finals as you need.
I'd make Dispensing an optional state after Waiting (for the > case) while the = case will directly go to selection. Just from a logical perspective. Of course you can make machines do dispense and change in parallel. In that case you need to fork to Dispense and Refund.
Correct
You should model Power off as Signal which can be triggered at any time. The power can be disconnected at any time during the machine is running, not just when it's idle.
I have the following scenario that i would like to make it into a use-case called CallHelp:
The patient needs assistance from a nurse.
The patient presses on the Force Sensitive Resistor (FSR) at the bedside.
The signal light at the bed side will be turned on.
The alarm will sound at the counter.
The web application will show indication of the bed number that calls for assistance.
nurse attends to the patient’s request.
The nurse clears the request on the web application.
However I only manage to get to this point so far and I am confused by the actor for the next few cases which i marked with ??
Use-Case: CallHelp
Primary actor: Patient (or Care system and Nurse too???)
Goal in context: To call for assistance from the nurse in duty.
Preconditions: The FSR is located at somewhere accessible by the patient.
Trigger: The patient needs assistance from the nurse in duty.
Scenario:
1.Patient: presses on the FSR2.
2.Care system: turns on signal light at bedside ??
3.Care system: sounds alarm at counter??
4.Care system: show indication on web app??
5.Nurse: attend to request??
6.Nurse: clear request??
Frequency of use: Many times per day.
Channel to actor: Via FSR sensor.
Is this allowable? Or how should I do this?
That's because they are three separate use cases in (parentheses) with three actors [in square brackets].
[Patient] -> (Request Assistance) -> [Care System] -> (display alert) -> [Nurse] -> (Respond to alert)
A use case is always triggered by an actor action.
Also note that the middle three are sometimes not shown on diagram to simplify the view. You could have a full scenario diagram named "Patient Assistance" that would just contain the two border use cases from above.
[Patient] -> (Request Assistance)
[Nurse] -> (Respond to alert)
However, your use case realization diagrams (sequence, collaboration) would show the complete interaction between all the design elements.
I need to clarify my concept.
I am making activity diagrams for different activities. for an activity titled as:
'View Profile'.... i need to make its dgm...
In 'view profile' a user can:
1- view his/her monthly bills
2- View demographics details
3- Edit his/her details
and foreach 1,2,3 there would be different steps to be followed
My question is:
how should i make an activity dgm for such a situation... here is what I am tryong to communicate.. help me how to correct it or what sort of symbol should be used in between to serve the correct purpose as its upto user whether he wants to explore all 1,2,3 or only 1 or only 2 etc
In fact I would create an activity diagram describing view profiling which would contains three CallActivities calling respectively three activities named "View details", "Edit details", and "View bills".
Now for linking these three CallActivities inside the ViewProfile Activity I would use decision/merge nodes (depending if the threes sub activities can not be performed in parallel).
Decision node corresponding to a if/else statement but if I well understood your issue you need that plus the fact that after having performed one of these subactivities you should be able to performe one of them and this is modeled by a flow coming back to these subactivities
Hoping it is clear and it helps
Please take a look at my attachment.
If only 1 option can occur at a time: a decision point (diamond shape) would be the most appropriate (annotated "user chooses option" or similar). The decision point would have 3 paths leading to the 3 possible options.
For clarity the paths should have arrows indicating direction.
To show that the user can perform another option after completing an initially chosen one, you could have another decision point that each of the 3 steps link to. That decision point could be named "User chooses to continue further steps?" or similar, with the "Yes" path leading back to the first decision point, and the "No" path leading to a final node.
Unsure if this is the right place to ask such question.
I have to define use cases for a Windows Service application and I have some issues.
It regards a Windows Service application that is programmed to perform some tasks periodically.
One of the use-cases is "The system looks up unpaid orders and sends reminder to customer".
Alistar Cockburn's definition of an Actor: "An actor is anyone or anything with behavior."
My questions now are:
1) In my scenario, who is the Actor or Actors?
2) Who are the stakeholders / interests?
I am not Mr. Cockburn, but...
Actor should be anyone (or anything) who comes into touch (/uses) with system. <= Easier definition for me.
1.) So in your case, customer should be actor.
2.) I was always creating use cases with just use cases and actors.. what are stakeholders and interests? They are imo just another actors. If not, it just adds complexity to tool, which should be simple. (IMO)
Btw: Is "The system looks up unpaid orders and sends reminder to customer". really a use case? Isn't that a scenario (part of a use case)?
Edit: Use cases should describe behaviour from end user point of view. So it really should be something like:
Scenario: Pay for order
Actor: Customer
Flow:
1. Customer requests unpaid orders from system (not specifing how).
2. System provides (shows) unpaid orders.
3. Customer chooses one order
4. System process selection and shows detail about selected order
5. Customer requests to make a payment (again not telling something like 'customer will click on button called "pay"')
6. System requests payment details from user
7. User fills details
8. System validates entered data
9. IF successful:
a.) Order payment is comleted, system redirects user to XXX.
10. ELSE go back to step 7
It might be a bit long... but that's basically how I am doing scenarios (which are grouped into one use case).
Hi im not used to UML but i have to create a Use case diagram for a system.
Id Appreciate(HELP!) if some one could make an example of a use case Any of the information i provide. the system rums on windows mobile phone 7
Mobile Location based GPS
User creates account,
User Creates Profile(identy) on the account
User Chooses Region
User Chooses to partcipate, then gets Assigned A location from servers online
User gaol of Reaching loaction met, User is Assigned Points(leader board updated), If the user Fails No points Valuse of location increases.
USer Can Equip tools, User Gets new Tools if Points Goals are reached.
User Can lookup point leaderboard, See users Rank
Please wip out paint for 2-3 mins and how me how to do one of these use cases !
And does each sentance need a use case ? or is it possilbe to give a use case to each of these lines ?
THANKs!
I can't help but ask: What benefit does creating a UML use case diagram, with stick men and bubbles, give you that the simple sentences you posted do not? I simply don't understand what the fascination with UML is all about.