I have seen switch-case recommendations for activity diagram, however I can not find an example for sequence diagram. Do we have to use break keyword while drawing or just drawing conditions only?
I use the alternative block with more than one condition in them, see the pic above
I am not sure about the correctness of this but I use this way to use the switch case in the sequence diagram and it is posted at the link below:
http://www.tracemodeler.com/articles/a_quick_introduction_to_uml_sequence_diagrams/
Related
The above use case diagram is to detect fall
So basically, I was trying to use the 'Alarming', 'send SMS' and 'stop SMS' use case as an extension from the base case 'detection of fall' but they also have include relationship as shown in the diagram. Therefore, I tried to do it as shown in the diagram above
Any comments, please? Is it correct?
If you feel the obligation to indicate if conditions in a use-case diagram, it should probably not be a use-case diagram anymore. Try to represent this as an activity diagram, and simplify your use case to something as simple as “Alert for situations of distress”.
I am trying to draw a use case diagram for navigation. However, I am not sure if it is correct since the 'call out address' base use case is being used as included use case.
Any comments on the above diagram please?
This is not a use case diagram. Your bubbles contain Actions being part if some Activity carried out by a use case. A use case shows added value an actors gets from the system under considertion. Please start at square one!
I recommend reading Bittner/Spence about use case modelling. The best read you can get on that topic.
How to show «include» and «extend» in activity diagram?
And how can I show types in activity diagram. E.g. Vehicle is of 2 types i.e Bike and Car. So how can I show this in activity diagram?
(This answer is independent of whether or not you should use «include» or «extend».)
A use case can be specified any number of ways. For some examples, you can use natural language, tables, or activity diagrams.
It appears that you would like to specify use cases as activities. In that case, each use case is specified by one activity diagram. The one to one correspondence between a use case and an activity also holds true for included use cases and extending use cases.
The way you would specify an inclusion on a use case's activity diagram is as an action that calls the activity of another use case. It's that simple.
The way you would specify in extension is more complicated. The UML 2.5 specification says:
The specific manner in which the location of an ExtensionPoint is
defined is intentionally unspecified.
An extending use case is one that composes one or more extension points. Each extension point may specify a condition that must hold in the extended use case. When that condition holds, the extending use case's behavior will activate. This extension point does not show up in the activity diagram of the extended use case.
Regarding your question about types, none of us really know what you're asking. Please let me know whether or not this other answer is what you need: Linking activity diagram to entities to be accessed.
Simply speaking: you must no show it if you avoid it. I/E are bad constructs since they lead people to using functional decomposition during use case synthesis.
If, for what reason ever, you have a case with I/E you can place the Activity of the according use case as invocation action in your sequence of actions. That will simply represent the I/E. And depending on whether it's optional/mandatory will be clear by the flow of events.
I leave your type-question out until you clarify that.
i am confused in drawing a sequence diagram of a use case which includes multiple use cases, should i draw separate sequence diagram for every (included) use case or a single sequence diagram for those use cases?
You ran into a common issue with <<include>> or <<extend>>. If any of both is used, the UC must describe the point where that actually happens. And of course you would not need to expand that part. Instead you refer to the description of I/E UCs. This can be done with diagram gates or by re-using activities.
Has anyone ever seen a sequence diagram used as a use case? I never have and it really twists my head. At my current company, in all the documentation and discussions, the term "use case" is used to label a sequence diagram. I've asked a couple of times about this practice and get funny looks like it is a normal thing to do. - I've been a software engineer for a long time and used UML since the late 1990's when it was first (fairly) widely talked about. I don't expect to change the company culture. I'm just asking if this practice is used anywhere else and associated comments. - Thanks.
In my university, we learned that a use case diagram and a sequence diagram are both different diagrams with different meanings. In my experience, I have never heard anyone calling a sequence diagram a use case diagram or vice versa so I guess it's just the company culture...
Sequence Diagrams are typically used to describe an example of an action flow with communication. Thus Sequence Diagrams are very well suited to display an example for a use case. For this reason it is normal to refer to such a diagram as "a use case".
In consequence you would draw multiple Sequence Diagrams for each Use Case