I'm practicing drawing a use case diagram for a very simple case, a color-guessing game.
I don't have a picture but it is really simple, with two bubbles for the Player actor to interact with, Play Game and Reset Game.
I would like to add a condition "initialize game" for both use cases, in Play Game it is a precondition and in Reset Game it is a post condition.
It cannot be another use case because the actor would be then System or Game and that's not feasible. Only Player benefits from performing the two current use cases.
How should I include that condition in the use case diagram? Or should I?
No.
Use cases are about added value. A single use case shows a single added value brought to its primary actor by the system under consideration. Nothing else! Use cases are a very high business view on the system under consideration.
The conditions you are talking about are part of scenarios you design to implement reaching that added value. And it's hidden in activities inside the use cases.
Other conditions like "user must be logged in" are constraints and attached to use cases somehow. No need to show these on a diagram (though you may if needed).
Related
I am new to object oriented design and I wanted to do my first ever UML use case Diagram on a simple application which contains toolbar on the top left corner. The toolbar is called files and when the user clicks on it,a drop down menu is opened with options to open a slide,save slide,make new slide and exit the application.
My question is, am I doing it correct with Use-Case inheritance(Generalization) ?
This is my diagram.
I am sorry to disapoint you, but I have to tell you that this practice is just plain wrong:
From the point of view of the semantics, the use-case specialization means that Open presentation is a special form of Check file, and Save file as well, and that the actor could use them interchangeably and independently. But this cannot be what you mean: exiting a presentation is at best a sub-part of checking a file
From the point of view of the purpose, a use-case should represent a user goal. It's part of the problem space, i.e. what the user wants to achieve. It's not part of the solution space, i.e. how the user will achieve it. A toolbar is not a goal: it's a user-interface element.
From the engineering practice perspective, use-case should not be used for user-interface design. It's not my own statement, but that of Jacobson, Booch and Rumbaugh, the founding fathers of UML:
The problem is that the [use-case] descriptions often contain implicit decisions about user-interfaces. Later, when the user interface designers suggest suitable user-interfaces for the use-case , they may be limited by those decisions.
in The unified software development process, page 164
So in conclusion, it's a bad idea to start use-cases from the user-interface. It locks you into your own design and ignores the user experience. You should focus instead only on the user needs. THe same use-case could then be used whether you'll implement it using a GUI interface, a chatbot interface, or a a voice-based interface.
While drawing Use Case diagram, one thing you should focus on is, the actual meaning of it and the purpose of drawing it.
A Use Case refers to what the users in respect of their type are able to do in your System... Anything inside the boundary is what system is capable of doing or what it can provide as a service to its users.
While naming the use cases, you should only use verbs and actions, for example:
1- Login | 2- Submit a Request | 3- Update Profile Description
You should avoid any nouns in them.
There are several relationships that exist in a Use Case Diagram among use cases, and a relationship among actors and use cases of the system, And They are as follows:
Association: the only relationship that can exist between an actor and a use case; Which says the actor is initiator of this use case, or is the one who is caple of operating the use case.
In the example above, User is caple of loggin in and submitting a complaint.
Include: Use Cases can include one or more use cases. When a use case includes another use case, it means the included use case or use cases happen all the time and are part of the initial use case.
Paying fees is included, because user has to pay the fees in signing up process, it has to be done, and it's part of the baseline path of the scenario.
Extend: When a use case is not happening all the time, and is part of your alternative path ( Alternative path of the complete scnario for this use case ), the use case should be extended to the base use case.
Forget password is extended to Login use case, because it doesn't happen all the time, and it's part of a alternative path of Login scenario.
Generalization: When there exist several different ways that a use case can be performed and completed, we use generalization. The inheritent use cases should all be of the same type as the inherited use case.
Submitting a complaint can be done in several different ways, in this case, we need to seprate each use case and inherit from from the submit a complaint use case which includes paying fees, this shows that, paying fees is a part of every type of complaint which is submitted.
If a player could be assigned to a team then the use case would be Assign Player but if a player could also be reassigned then would another use case, Reassign Player, be created, which could include Assign Player?
Or would the single use case of Assign Player be enough and just state the assumption that Assign Player would handle the event of that player being currently assigned?
This depends, as always.
However, this might well be worth a use of an <<includes>> relation. Re-assigning a player might eventually be more complex and in the end you'll just Assign player as usual. Eventually. But as well the re-assignment might be a completely different thing in which case you have two different and independent use cases. Or it's a "don't care of the previous assignment" in which case you have just one single UC Assign player.
Edit As per Patrick87's comment I add the following: A UC represents a single added value a system under consideration delivers to one of its actors. Now, an added value is something unique. Finding that is hard, which is why it need business analysts that know their job. I for myself try seeing a UC as something like a unique selling proposition. It's not obvious in most cases. But once you placed the right bubble it feels right. Don't start decomposing it into single "functions". That's a different story and it can only start after all UCs are settled. Only then you start construction scenarios inside each UC to describe the how-to.
And my general recommendation: read Bittner/Spence who really get to the point.
I do not know what your teams are playing. It could be a game like chess, or a kind of sports like soccer.
So your use case would be something that tells us about the overall goal of your system under construction:
Is it "play soccer game" or "play chess"?
You can decompose that into more fine grained scenarios, as long as you still describe actual goals of your system.
For actual functional decomposition, you should use other diagramtypes, namely activity diagrams, state diagrams and possibly sequence diagrams.
I just want to determine if I am using extend and include correctly. If I am using either incorrectly somewhere here please indicate where, and if possible, why it is incorrect.
https://imageshack.com/scaled/large/163/nlnk.jpg
Cheers.
Rules for using <<include>> and <<extend>> are simple:
<<include>> defines a sub use-case which is always included in the general use-case: use-case -include--> sub use-case. Usually it's used to denote a distinct part of a use-case or a common part that can be reused by other use-cases.
<<extend>> defines an optional sub use-case that can be executed upon certain conditions (which should be defined at a lower level design, not in use-case diagram). Here the direction of the relation is opposite to the <<include>> relation: use-case <--extend- sub use-case.
Apply these rules to your diagram and figure out if it's correct.
It looks as though "secure login" is required to be performed prior to the other activities that you link with <<include>>. Include implies that the use case also runs the included use case every time which in this case is probably not what you intend (just one login per session). You can always create new stereotypes, such as <<precedes>> or <<requires>>. Using them consistently will allow you to convey your meaning.
I find this piece of advice before when I'm trying to distinguish the difference between using extend and intend in use case diagram.. I hope it helps you too. The original advice comes from this StackOverflow answer.
Difference between extend and include
Extend is used when a use case conditionally adds steps to another
first class use case. For example, imagine "Withdraw Cash" is a use
case of an ATM machine. "Assess Fee" would extend Withdraw Cash and
describe the conditional "extension point" that is instantiated when
the ATM user doesn't bank at the ATM's owning institution. Notice that
the basic "Withdraw Cash" use case stands on its own, without the
extension.
Include is used to extract use case fragments that are duplicated in
multiple use cases. The included use case cannot stand alone and the
original use case is not complete without the included one. This
should be used sparingly an only in cases where the duplication is
significant and exists by design (rather than by coincidence). For
example, the flow of events that occurs at the beginning of every ATM
use case (when the user puts in their ATM card, enters their PIN, and
is shown the main menu) would be a good candidate for an include.
Also, from every book I've read, it is always recommended to use include and extend sparingly. Keep It Simple Silly.
Many relationships are clearly not correct here. However, I think the main issue with this diagram is not the correct use of include and extend, but rather to complex and overall unclear relationships. Although sitactically valid, you should avoid using more than one level of these relationships.
Your diagram is really hard to follow and to interpret.
Some refactoring ideas and corrections:
show "Secure login" class separately, linked only with Actor and then apply the following precondition for all use cases that "include" it: "User is securelly logged in"
"Logout after 5 mins" should be own use case, only connected to Actor as well, with 2 preconditions: "User is securelly logged in" and "User was inactive for 5 mins"
Remove the include between "Logout after 5 mins" and "Initiate a call". Extend might be more appropriate
reverse the direcction of the include between "Transfer funds..." and "Insure adequate funds..." - it is clear that the first one includes the second one and not vice versa
consider breaking a diagram in 2 or more simple and small diagrams of only related UCs: all login/logout could for example be shown separate and simplify the view. You should not have more than 5-7 use cases on one diagram
Is this use case diagram over complicated? I'm trying to implement a use case for the first time, and I'm trying to get it within the ball park.
Jordan, your use case is missing out the system name at the top.
And there is no over-complicated Use Case Diagram, as long as it fits the requirements of the client.
P.S: By the way, the following Use Case Diagram is one of my assignment in school (so it's not for a system to be built, but similar anyway). It's way complex than what you have there, but it's not over-complicated because the system needs all these use-cases. Imagine drawing the use case of Twitter or Facebook.
Merlion University Student Association System Use Case Diagram
Doesn't look overly complicated, but you're missing the part that goes on the right, which is the actions in the box use/affect. For example, Add Account may communicate with a database, in which case you'd put a box on the right (outside of the center box) called Database and have Add Account point to it.
suppose you have to do a Use Case Diagram for this simple problem (that is part of a much bigger exercise i am doing):
a registered user (of a web application) can search for tourist attractions in two ways: by category (for example: museums, parks, theaters, archaeological sites) or by location (city, county).
How should i model this UCD?
The most simple way would be: the actor (registered user), two use cases (search tourist attraction by category and search by location), the secondary actor (the server of the web application, which would process the query and send back the results).
My concern is that in this way the four categories and the two type of locations would not be present in the use case.
I was thinking of using the "extend" relationship. For example, i would add a use case named "Search parks" that extends the use case "Search by category". The extension point would be the event that the user chooses to search for parks.
Or i could use an inheritance relationship between the "Search by category" and "Search parks"...mmmm...i am a little confused...
How would you model this little problem using USD??
Thank you,
Luca
First of all you have to realize, that Use Case Diagrams aren't substitute for actual (written) Use Cases. Use Case descriptions contain many important details, which are omitted in Use Case diagrams. Use Case diagrams are good for depicting hierarchies of actors, associated use cases and relationships between use cases, but nothing more.
Another important thing is to realize what an use case actually is. Good way to think about them is to find a goal of an actor, which he/she wants to achieve with help from the system. Achieving this goal should give the actor some business value. My point is, that from what you described, registered user might want to search for a sightseeing and/or buy entry tickets. So this is his goal and this should be a an use case, don't confuse use cases with functionality/features like different ways of searching etc.
In your first suggestion you have two use cases, which differ only in data (e.g. it might be just different choice from a combo box in a form). Such differences, if they don't influence the way the system and actors interact, are described separately from the use cases in a data glossary, which you reference in your use case. This way you avoid many unnecessary details in use case descriptions. If on the other hand, the steps in the description change (e.g. when registečred user chooses location system gives him/her an option to select another registered user as a friend and pre-selects favourite locations of both or something like that...), you can capture this by using alternatives/extensions.
You mention the system you are developing as the secondary actor. Don't forget, the system under development is an implicit actor and is not shown diagrams as a separate actor. Use boundary box (rectangle encompassing use cases excluding actors) to depict scope of your system.
Finally to your concern. These are all just details about the data, which are not part of an use case. You can capture those details in text (by namicng all categories etc.) using the data glossary as mentioned above. If you think the structure and relations between data is important and needs to be captured using diagrams, you can use class diagrams to create data/domain models.
Last note about use case relationships - don't use them if you don't have to. They are often hard to understand and vaguely defined. Never ever use them to decompose the functionality, that is up to design, not analysis with use cases.
I hate depicting Search in a use case. There are simply too many variables. It's like trying to write a use case for using a browser.
Search is a good candidate for early prototyping supplemented with business rules.