I am making a class diagram for Class/Course Registration where students have to first register their course then select their class schedules (timetable)
I am unsure if I can have CourseRegistration and ClassRegistration table like that. The reason why I made it like that is, a student can register for a course but doesnt register to a class directly. so they can wait few days and then only register. So I have to make sure the course registration is saved in the database.
Thank you for all the help
PS: pls don't mind my attributes, they're just a draft.
Your business logic for the registration process (register both for a course and a corresponding class) is too complicated. Normally, one would only register for a class, which would then imply taking the corresponding course.
Also, what does "ClassSchedule" stand for? Is an instance of a "ClassSchedule" a class meeting?
Since your model is supposed to define a design (of database tables and of, e.g., Java classes), each entity class should have an ID attribute defined, which is expressed in UML with the keyword "id" in curly braces appended to the attribute declaration. Having "ID" in the attribute names is not a formal declaration. Also, an ID attribute seems to be missing for ClassSchedule.
Yes, that's fine this way. You could alternatively use the association class notation like this:
Some side notes:
labeling associations is not that helpful except you are on a business level analysis. Rather use role names on either end where appropriate.
Edit I somehow overlooked that you're designing tables. So my previous comment
remove all the id attributes. Each object will have its unique id assigned by the runtime system. Use such an id only if it's of public meaning (e.g. a passport id or a student's registration number). And then use that specific name (e.g. passportId) rather than a <class>id.
goes just for basic class design. If you already have a (derived) table design you can just go with those ids.
Related
Since #sys.airport only exists for the default English locale, I want to create a custom entity that emulates it for other locales.
From what I've read here, you can put subentity types into the value fields, say, the system entity #sys.geo-city:city and a custom entity #usr.iata-code:iata, and it will match either one or the other.
But I don't understand how you would tell Dialogflow which city and which IATA code go together, so that Dialogflow (ES) would know to send the complete object {"city":"Amsterdam", "iata": "AMS"} to the webhook after matching either "Amsterdam" or "AMS", as it does happen with #sys.airport.
Thanks for any input!
It will be difficult to create a custom entity that works just like #sys.airport. The #sys entities are special and can do somethings custom entities can't, for instance, pairing values together.
As you pointed out, you can put multiple entities together in one single entity by using Composite Entities, but the only thing this does is allow you to recognize two values made up from other #sys or custom entities in a single entity. It doesn't give you the option to create pairs between the values of the entities.
If you would want to create something like this, you would need some code that does a look up in a dictionary or list. So when "AMS" is matched, the code fills in the missing property "Amsterdam" or vice versa.
I have sample project for identity customization using
Install-Package Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.Samples -pre
command. But, for this project I have a general ApplicationUser class representing all the users of my application. What if I have different categories of users. For example, I may have Teacher and Student entities and data representing both the entities will be different. How can I customize my application to store data for both the entities having all the features of ApplicationUser?
One way that I think is inheriting both the classes from ApplicationUser and then doing appropriate changes in IdentityConfig.csand defining Controllers for each of them. Is there any other efficient way of doing this?
What if I want to use the built-in authentication and authorization features but using database first workflow?
First, you want to know how to create "types" of users. The way you would do that is exactly how you expected: inherit from ApplicationUser. By default, this will result in a single "users" table with an additional Discriminator column. This column will store the class type that was persisted, i.e. "Teacher", "Student", or "ApplicationUser", and EF will utilize this information to new up the right class for each particular record.
One thing to note with this, though, is that you need to be aware of how UserManager works, namely that it's a generic class (UserManager<TUser>). The default AccountController implementation you have from the sample defines a UserManager property on the controller which is an instance of UserManager<ApplicationUser>. If you use this instance with something like Teacher, it will be upcast to ApplicationUser. In particular if you were to do something like UserManager.Create(teacher), it will actually save an ApplicationUser, instead (the Discriminator column's value will be "ApplicationUser", rather than "Teacher"). If you need to work with the derived user types, you'll need to create separate instances of UserManager<Teacher> and UserManager<Student> for that purpose.
Next, you want to know if you can use a "database first workflow". To answer that, we need to define exactly what that means. EF has what it calls "Database First" which employs EDMX to represent your database entities. This in particular is incompatible with Identity. However, despite the name, what EF calls "Code First", can work with an existing database just as well as create a new one. In other words, yes, you can use an existing database, if you prefer, but no you cannot use "Database First", in the EF-sense. For more information about using an existing database with Code First, see my post.
I'm working on a class diagram of a simple project.
Here's a basic description of it:
"usuario" is the 'user class'. From it, i can have "membro_coral, "Membro_comissao" and "Administrador". "membro_coral" can post some news on the web site, but it goes through an avaliation to see if it can be posted or not. "Membro_coral" has a "perfil" associated with it.
There's the "evento" class. It's a class for mapping events. Users can give their disponibilities to attend to some events. And "escalacoes_disponibilidades" is the junction table.
I've added Three classes corresponding to the "Perfil" values. Some people are "membro_comissao", some people are "membro_coral" and actualy, only one is the "Administrador".
Is this class diagram right? Any modifications i should do?
EDIT: i've update my class diagram. I've added the "Status_Noticia" class. It's associated with noticia. I've done this in order to improve the statemachine diagram of "Noticia" (there's an use case which an user can send news to de displayed, but it goes through an avaliation process).
It's mostly correct. There are some minor observations however:
Membro_comissao, Membro_coral and Administrator are kind of users, right? If so, you should do one of the following: a) derive all 3 classes form user, or b) create a new class (enumerator) TipoUsuario, with those 3 values. Which option to implement depends on if there are some special features that make the 3 different one from another (some different attributes, methods or maybe associations (see the next point)
You said: " "Membro_coral" has a "perfil" associated with it.". Than this class should be associated with PErfil and not otherwise. This could be a reason to apply the option a) from before. This association should be a normal assoc. and not a composition
So, the main decision you must take is how to model user types.
In a JSF page I have to display the data from an entity.
This entity has some int fields which cannot be displayed directly but need to be translated into a descriptive string.
Between them some can have a limited number of values, others have lots of possible values (such as a wordlwide Country_ID) and deserve a table on the Db with the association (ID, description).
This latter case can easily be solved navigating via relationship from the original entity to the entity corresponding to the dictionary table (ID, description) but I don't want to introduce new entities just to solve translations form ID to description.
Besides another integer field has special needs: the hundred thousand number should be changed with a letter according to a rule such as 100015 -> A00015, 301023 -> C01023.
Initially I put the translation code inside the entity itself but I know the great limits and drawbacks of this solution.
Then I created a singletone (EntityTranslator) with all the methods to translate the different fields. For cases where the field values are a lot I put them inside a table which is loaded from the singletone and transformed in a TreeMap, otherwise the descriptions are in arrays inside the class.
In the ManagedBean I wrote a getter for EntityTranslator and inside the jsf I use quite long el statements like the following:
#{myManagedBean.entityTranslator.translateCountryID(myManagedBean.selectedEntity.countryID)}
I think the problem is quite general and I'm looking for a standard way to solve it but, as already stated, I don't want to create new 'stupid' entities only to associate an ID to a description, I think it is overkill.
Another possibility is the use of converters Object(Integer) <-> String but I'm more comfortable in having all the translation needs for an Entity inside the same class.
Your question boils down to the following simple line:
How can I display a field different from id of my entity in my view and how can I morph an integer field into something more meaningful.
The answer is that it depends on a situation.
If you solely want to input/output data, you don't need id at all apart from the possible view parameter like ?id=12345. In this case you can input/output anything you want in your view: the id is always there.
If you want to create a new entity most possibly you have a way of generating ids via JPA, or database, or elsehow besides the direct input from the user. In this situation you don't need to mess with ids as well.
If you want to use information on other entities like show user a dropdown box with e.g. a list of countries, you always have the option to separate label (let it be name) and value (let it be id), or even have a unique not null column containing the country name in your database table that will serve as a natural identifier. If you'd like to get data from the user using an input text field you always can create a converter that will do the job of transforming user input strings to actual entity objects.
Regarding the transformation of your integers, you've actually got several choices: the first one is to attach a converter for these fields that will roughly do 301023 -> C01023 and C01023 -> 301023 transformations, the second one is to write a custom EL function and the third one is to prepare the right model beforehand / do the transformations on-the-fly.
In ArgoUML, I have the ability to put a class Type to any property of a class. For example, I can declare a customer property with a Customer type in the Order class.
I can also easily draw a relationship from class to class:
But I can't figure out how to "draw" the link from the customer property to the Customer class. The link is never really connected to the property, but rather to the entire Order class.
I can move the position of the link manually:
But it's never really "locked" to the customer property, and can be moved automatically by the software at any moment.
Is there a way to do this?
You can not have an association in UML which is not connecting the entire two classes. It is not possible to touch the property inside the class.
Workarounds are:
add a note linked to the property
add an icon to the property which would be designed like an association.
I don't know if this advanced icons customization is available in this free tool but it is in other tools.
I found a flash demo which shows the association attribute with an icon. Look at : http://www.download-omondo.com/show_association_member.swf
If you need to understand what mean an association in UML and code generation in Java then have a look at this demo: http://www.download-omondo.com/association.swf
Hope this help.
ArgoUML follows the UML specification. Associations are drawn from one class to another. Attributes are drawn inside the 2nd compartment of a class.
The association type closest in meaning to an attribute is composition, but they are not equivalent.
You should never portray something AND as an attribute of a class, AND as a separate class associated to it.
E.g. 1. an Order may have a Number, that may be used by the customer to identify his Order. The Number is best portrayed as an attribute (in the 2nd compartment of the class).
E.g. 2. an Order may be associated to the Customer who placed the order. The Customer is best portrayed as a separate class, since it has its own lifespan (behavior), associated with the Order. This allows to show multiplicities and roles at both ends of the association line.