For my homework, I have to write functional requirement of a game called downfall (see Wikipedia).
We have to make this game, but with not two sides but n (any number of) sides.
In an example solution (another game), the teacher writes the functional requirements, then writes what use case they belong to.
I have created a use case diagram in which I have the player as an actor, and ChooseDial, RotateDial and EndTurn as use cases:
What I dont understand are the following:
Is the number of players functional requirement?
Is the table having two sides a functional requirement?
Is the goal of the game (getting coins from top to bottom) a functional requirement?
Is a rule like coins must reach bottom in order a functional requirement?
If they are, what use case could they belong to? Is my use case diagram wrong?
I have no idea where to put these functional requirements, because I feel like they arent part of any of my use cases.
About requirements
First, let's handle the requirement question:
A functional requirement tells something about what a software shall do. Everything related to goal, the gameplay or the rules of the game, is a functional requirement.
A non functional requirement tells something about how the software shall be, for example how accurate, how performant, how easy to use, how easy to maintain. Your narrative shows no such requirements.
About use-cases
Use case driven software development methods start with the high-level user's goals that are captured in use-cases. Personally, I see only one such goal:
Very rare usage: a multiplicity on the actor side of the use case. This says that 2 or more instances of players are involved in an instance of the use case. Of course, this makes sense only for the game as a whole, not for individual actions (like you have in your diagram).
In your diagram, you have shown 3 use cases:
is EndTurn an independent goal that the user may freely decide to chose ? No ! It's what always follows a player action. So this is definitely not a use case.
you say that RotateDials extends ChooseDials. This means that a player could ChooseDials but not rorate it. Is this a valid scenario ?
if on the other hand you'd say that ChooseDials includes RotateDials, the latter would always happen. But then, wouldn't ChooseDial not be more than just choosing a dial ? Shouldn't it then be called PlayTurn ?
I could understand that for learning purpose, you'd want to decompose the Play game in more detailed use-cases. Typically, once the players try to reach their goal Play game, this might include sub-goals of Play turn. As long as it is goal-oriented, and not too detailed, this is ok. But do avoid simple functional decomposition (it doesn't help for being more user-driven, and use-cases are not functions ). And, above all, do not misuse a use-case diagram for trying to show a sequence of activities.
Requirement traceability
The use cases do not capture the full requirements. It captures the most enssential thing: the purpose of the system and the user goals.
When writing down the requirements, it's then useful to get guided by the use-cases and their narrative, and to trace-back every use-case specific requirement.
But of course, there are some general requirements as well. These are not specific to a particular use-case. Some are even common to all use case. Mark these as general requirements (e.g. use case *).
Requirements management (RM) can be tricky indeed. A requirement like The board must have two sides seems to be more involved in the design, rather than the use case. In such cases you could relate that to the boundary rather than a single use case. That will indicate it's some "global" requirement (similar to a non-functional requirement). Usually in a project you start with a more or less strange mix of requirements mixed in user stories. The business analyst (BA) has to comb that information and come up with decent use cases (synthesize the added values). The system architect (with the BA) will then go through requirements and use cases to come up with a (business) class model.
There are tons of books and procedures describing RM. Lots of seminars too. I think if you grasp the condensed idea above you're ready to start. It's a marathon to start...
Related
Imagine that we are building a Library system. Our use cases might be
Borrow book
Look up book
Manage membership
Imagine that we can fulfill these use cases by a librarian person or a machine. We need to realize these use cases.
Should we draw different use case realizations for different flows?
If not, it is very different to borrow a book from a machine and a person. How can we handle it?
Moreover, what if we have updated version of library machines some day? (e.g. one with keyboard and the other is with touch screen) What should we do then? The flow stays the same, however the hardware and the software eventually be different.
What would you use to realize use cases and why?
It might be a basic question, but I failed to find concrete examples on the subject to understand what is right. Thank you all in advance.
There is no single truth or one way you "should" do it. I will give you my approach, based on the Unified Process.
The use case technique is primarily used to describe a dialog between a human user (actor) and an application. It is modeled as an ellipse and further specified as an activity diagram or just a list of steps: 1 The actor does A, 2 The system does B, 3 The actor does C etc. In this approach, the application is regarded as a black box.
A "use case realization" describes how the system performs its steps (white box), e.g. in terms of collaborating components, transparent to the user.
It is possible, but much less common, to have so-called business use cases. In that case, the "system" represents an enterprise or a business unit. In your case, it would be the library. The "actor" represents an external person or organization, e.g. a client or a supplier. In your case, it would be a client. With business use cases, the library is regarded as a black box. The steps are still in format "actor does A; system does B", but here, it is not specified which of the library's actions are performed by humans and which by applications. The system is the organization, interfacing with external actors, regardless of whether this is implemented by employees or by applications.
A "business use case realization" specifies how the system performs its steps (white box) and specifies which parts are done by employees and which parts by machines.
Now, let me answer you questions one by one.
Question 1.
If you have described your use case as a business use case, and it is at such a high level of abstraction that the steps for client-librarian interaction are the same as for client-machine interaction, then you will have one business use case "Borrow book" and two business use case realizations for this business use case.
However, it is more common practice to have only use cases for user-application interaction. If the client interacts with the system in the same way as a librarian would do on behalf of the client, then you will have only one use case "Borrow book", with actor "Person". This actor has two specializations: "Client" and "Librarian". There will be only one use case realization per use case.
Otherwise, you would have one use case "Borrow book online" describing the flow of events when a client interacts directly with the application, connected to actor "Client" and another use case "Borrow book for client" describing the flow of events when a librarian interacts with the application while talking to the client. The latter use case has "Librarian" as its actor. Again, there will be only one use case realization per use case.
You may choose to model the Client-Librarian interaction separately, or not at all, depending on the purpose of your model.
Question 2.
Let's take use case "Borrow book online". You may have two use case realizations for this use case: one for the keyboard machine and one for the touch screen machine. If these use case realizations are very similar, then I would just make only one use case realization and describe the fact that there are two possible input devices inside that single realization.
Question 3.
For a business use case realization, I would use BPMN 2.0 or a UML activity diagram. These are well suited for business workflow specification.
For a normal use case realization, I usually make a sequence diagram, where the lifelines in those diagrams refer to components defined in a common component diagram. In the left margin of the sequence diagrams, I usually write the steps of the use case in UML note symbols. The sequence diagram focuses on the interaction between components, using their interfaces. This gives a nice overview of the collaboration between components in the context of a particular use case.
For more information, please refer to my white paper Which UML models should we make?. The use case realization is described on page 19.
UML is method-agnostic. Even when there are no choices to make, there are different approaches to modeling, fo example:
Have one model and refine it succesfully getting it through the stages requirements, analysis (domain model of the problem), design (abstraction to be implemented), implementation (classes that are really in the code).
Have different models for different stage and keep them all up to date
Have successive models, without updating the previous stages.
keep only a high level design model to get the big picture, but without implementation details that could be found in the code.
Likewise, for your question, you could consider having different alternative models, or one model with different alternatives grouped in different packages (to avoid naming conflicts). Personally, I’d go for the latter, because the different alternatives should NOT be detailed too much. But ultimately, it’s a question of cost and benefits in your context.
By the way, Ivar Jacobson’s book, the Object advantage applies OO modeling techniques to business process design. So UML is perfectly suitable for a human solution. It’s just that the system under consideration is no longer an IT system, but a broader organisational system, in which IT represents some components among others.
UML has collaboration elements to show different implementations. The use cases are anchors since the added value for the actors does not change. However, you can realize these use cases in different ways. And that is where the collaborations come into play. A collaboration looks like a use case but has a dashed border. And you draw a realize relation from one or many collaborations towards a use case. Inside the collaborations you show how the different implementation's classes collaborate (hence the name).
P.213 of UML 2.5 in paragraph 11.7 Collaborations:
The primary purpose of Collaborations is to explain how a system of communicating elements collectively accomplish a specific task or set of tasks without necessarily having to incorporate detail that is irrelevant to the explanation. Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns.
A CollaborationUse represents the application of the pattern described by a Collaboration to a specific situation involving specific elements playing its collaborationRoles.
I have a question about uml and extend notation of use-case.
How I can extend all use case.
For example if I created a connection down use case that extend almost all use case, but I don't want to connect all with the notation on the use case diagram cause is very orrible to see. How can I do?
First of all: the importance of Use Cases
Modeling Use Case Diagrams (Use Case Modeling) is SO important step in Software Analysis and Use Case Modeling should be performed by professional Analysts:
All estimations (Time, Budget, Resources and etc.) are performed based an Use Cases.
In some Use Case Driven Methodologies, all subsequent steps are based on Use Cases.
and etc.
Secondly: Knowing Use Case Modeling Traps.
In Use Case Modeling there are some traps that we need to conside related to your question:
(Trap #1: Use cases that users don't understand.) (see reference 1)
Use cases are a way to represent user requirements, which describe
what the user needs to be able to do with the product. Use cases
should focus on tasks a user needs to accomplish with the help of the
system, so they should relate to the user's business processes.
Your users should be able to read and review use cases to find
possible problems, such as missing alternative flows or incorrectly
handled exceptions. If users cannot relate to use cases, there's a
problem. Perhaps they're written too much from a technical, rather
than business, perspective.
(Trap #4: Describing specific user interface elements and actions) (see reference 1)
Write "essential" use cases that describe the interactions between the
user and the system at an abstract level, without incorporating
user interface specifics. The use case description should not include
a screen design, although simple user interface prototypes can be
valuable to facilitate the use case exploration.
(2. Not having clear business goals for every use case) (see reference 2)
(6. Specifying use cases in too much detail) (see reference 2)
Thirdly: Use Case Modeling is in the Requirement phage of methodologies.
We should not put common implementation methods in Use Cases. Common methods in implementation handled by other diagrams in next steps of methodology. (maybe in Design Model) So, if we put all common methods in Use Case Model, the number of use cases increases a lot. (and our estimation as mentioned in first part goes wrong)
You can't - and it's nonsense. A use case shows added value for an actor. Extensions to use cases are very rare. In most cases people try to apply functional decomposition and mistake a step of actions recurring in multiple use cases as "partial" use cases. They aren't! If you are trying to do what you describe you went the wrong path. You should instead think why and where your use case synthesis broke.
I strongly recommend reading Bittner/Spence to get the right idea what use cases are all about.
You can use use inheritance.
Something like this, use cases B and C are extended since this is inherited.
But as #Kilian said, it would be interesting that you explain why you need a such model.
I have a small UML assignment due Monday; it doesn't seem too complicated, and I'm not asking this site to solve it for me -- I'm just asking for clarification over a couple doubts of mine.
I'm just telling parts of the assignment because its content is probably not so relevant.
We're provided a basic use case where the actors "officer" (e.g. police officer) communicates with the actor "correspondent" in order to report an emergency. The use case is expressed in the form:
Use case name: Report emergency
Participating actors: Officer, correspondent
Flow of events: ...
Preconditions: ...
Postconditions: ...
Then we're given three scenarios that "refine" the use case. I say "refine" because they turn it upside-down: they involve team leaders, respondents, incident handling -- nothing that was even mentioned in the flow of events described by the very basic use case given.
On top of these scenarios we're given ten "events" (i.e. they basically chunk the three scenarios into ten easily recognizable sentences). The assignment asks us to make one collaboration diagram for each of these events.
I know that collaboration diagrams describe the behaviour of the system, i.e. how the different parts of the systems interact with each other. So I thought that, even with these "creative" scenarios given, I could make something out of them. But then this part comes:
"Collaboration diagrams should make use of controller, boundary, domain objects and other new fabricated software objects (e.g. data structure components) necessary to completely handle each event."
And then:
"Your assignment will be evaluated in terms of the quality of your design (i.e. modularity: low coupling, high cohesion)"
My questions are:
1) Are scenarios supposed to present so much new information compared to the basic use case?
2) Do I just have to draw ten simple collaboration diagrams? Using which classes?
3) Why are things like low coupling, high cohesion, domain objects, mentioned? What do they have to do with all of this?
1) A scenario is a detailed description of a use case. There can be several scenarios based on constraints. The use case itself just describes the sunny day scenario in a condensed format. The meat is in the scenarios.
2) Classes related to the UC can be extracted when going through the scenario. You will find text parts that tell certain functions need to be performed. Take these classes and place them in the collaboration diagram and connect them with the right message.
3) These are general design rules. Low coupling/high cohesion means good design (and vice versa). The domain objects are those which are in the center of the system and the sum of all use cases will deal with the sum of all domain objects.
How do I determine what should I add to my use case diagrams? 1 for each button/form? Should things like sort and search be included? Or are they under "list items" for example? Though, a list of items seems understood?
The Use Case diagram is intended to help define the high-level business tasks that are important, not a list of functions of the system. For example, a system for use in customer service might involve a research task of looking up information to help someone on a support call.
Most of the literature describes Use Cases as a starting point for defining what the system needs to accomplish. The temptation has always been to be as complete as possible; adding ever more details to define the use case down to a functional (code-wise) level. While it is useful to have a comprehensive understanding of the requirements, the Use Case diagram is not intended to provide that level of documentation.
One thing that makes the issue worse is the syntax which I've never seen used in a working project. It isn't that the terms aren't useful, it's due to the lack of consensus over when to use either term for a given use case. The UML artifacts expect a process that is more focused on the business language instead of the implementation language - and by that I do not mean a computer language. The tendency by some has been to approach the diagrams with a legalistic bent and worry about things like when to use for related use cases or how to express error-handling as exceptions to a defined list of process tasks.
If you have ever tried to work through the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) example, you'll know what I mean. In the solar system of UML learning, the ATM example is a black hole that will suck you into the details. Avoid using it to understand UML or the Object Oriented Analysis and Design. It has many of the problems, typical of real-world domains, that distract from getting an overall understanding even though it would make for a good advanced study.
Yes, code will eventually be produced from the UML artifacts, but that does not mean they have to be debated like a treaty in the Senate.
The OMG UML spec says:
Use cases are a means for specifying required usages of a system. Typically, they are used to capture the requirements of a system, that is, what a system is supposed to do. The key concepts associated with use cases are actors, use cases, and the subject. The subject is the system under consideration to which the use cases apply. The users and any other systems
that may interact with the subject are represented as actors. Actors always model entities that are outside the system.
The required behavior of the subject is specified by one or more use cases, which are defined according to the needs of actors. Strictly speaking, the term “use case” refers to a use case type. An instance of a use case refers to an occurrence of the
emergent behavior that conforms to the corresponding use case type. Such instances are often described by interaction specifications.
An actor specifies a role played by a user or any other system that interacts with the subject. (The term “role” is used
informally here and does not necessarily imply the technical definition of that term found elsewhere in this specification.)
Now most people would agree that business and user level interactions are the sweet spot, but there is no limitation. Think about the actors/roles being outside of the main system/systems you are focusing on. But in one view a system could be an actor, but in another the implementer of other use cases.
On a Use Case diagram can you show things that an actor cannot do, for example because they won't have permissions to do it?
Or is it just implied due to the fact that they won't have a line joining them to the particular use case?
If the Use Case you are diagramming is the case where an actor attempts to do something that is not permitted and is then denied, then yes, I would show it.
Otherwise, I would stick to only including things that are actually part of the use case.
No. An Actor would be connected to everything that he can do. If the Actor can't do it, then it's not shown.
This is what alternate paths are for. The basic path (a.k.a. happy path) will show what happens when the correct Actor initiates the Use Case. In the alternate paths you can show what happens if the wrong Actor attempts to initiate it.
You might model Role actors that can do the task. You could then have another use case that has the original actor attempting to acquire the given Role.
IMHO this question and most of the answers give a wrong impression about the way use cases should be used.
Use case was intended as a requirements technique that uses natural language. It is most and quite effective that way.
It can be a thoroughly destructive technique when it is combined with too much UML/modeling. Structured modeling of use case texts for example by modeling main and alternative flows using UML Activity Diagrams is a tried and tested way for example to create Use Cases of Mass Destruction.
A use case diagram can be useful but we should remember the purpose of use case as a technique which is first and foremost to identify the user goals a system should support. Subsequently we can capture more details using natural language in use case texts using main flow, alternative flows etc.
Using diagramming tools we can visualize some simple information:
- For each user goal we can create model element type Use Case.
- Show system boundary using a box for the system with use case elements in it.
- Create a relationship between actor and use case to show the actor has a particular goal against the system.
Keeping an up-to-date list of actors mapped to goals is however of secondary importance. Doing a stakeholder analysis, drawing up lists of actors is a means to identify the users goals. After user goals have been identified it is strictly speaking not longer necessary to keep the lists of actors around.
If we are asking questions about how to put user permissions in a use case model we are most likely trying to capture too much information. We should abstract model elements away so that the model does not try to answer/capture these type of detailed design questions.