Is there any formal way to signal that a function parameter is optional?
For example, in this image:
I want to inform that the nodes_clicked parameter could be populated or left empty.
Thanks.
Optional parameters are nothing handled in UML as it's jus "syntactic sugar" compilers implement to make coders happy. You can mimic that in a SD with a note attached to the message. However, I just would not go to that detail and leave it to the coder (they aren't children you have to tell each single step to take).
Sequence diagrams represent sequence of function calls. Each messages calls functions with their parameters and the values of these parameters. So you can not model the fact that a parameter can have a value or another...
Related
i've this method findNegozio(insertID) used to find the element with insertID in a Collection.
So, findNegozio(insertID) is an operation that is often referred to in my sequence diagrams so I thought I would illustrate it as a sequence diagram.
The idea is to represent an iteration on a collection and take only the element that matches with the entered ID.
Could this be a good way to represent my idea?
is it useful to represent a frequent step of some sequence diagrams?
EDIT: Maybe with only one step is better OPT instead of ALT.
First three remarks :
For me your code is invalid because a return is missing after the loop => I suppose a variable result is added and initialized to null, set to the found item if exist, and finally used for a final return.
Are you sure findNegocio is not static ?
Why findNegocio is defined on Negocio and not on GestoreNegocio ?
A sequence diagram shows an interaction (partially or not) and focuses on message interchange between lifelines.
From the definition of your operation it is needed to decide whose messages are enough interesting to be shown in your sequence diagram. I don't think the details concerning the list and iterator have to be shown, they are very classical, the goal is not to explain how to work with Java builtin classes.
To break the loop you have the fragment break, so your sequence diagram can be (I added a caller because my tool does not manage lost/found messages) :
But perhaps the main information shown is the use of GestoreNegocio and the loop by itself is not really interesting ?
I want to show use of same algorithm as a black box in two-pass iteration. In first pass, I would pass a value of a flag f as false, and an array of one element as A[1..1], output of first pass would be B[1..N]. In second pass, same algorithm would be used with f as true (to indicate second pass) with an input of A[1..N] (fed from output B[1..N] of first pass) whereas the output of second pass would be B[1..M]
Please help me drawing the UML Activity diagram for the same.
It's not a good idea to try "programming graphically". The algorithm you describe is better shown in meta code than in an activity diagram, as you already have seen. So what I'd do in your case is to have a single Action (representing most likely some CallOperation of some class. And the according behavior of the operation contains the description in either meta code or plain text (as you already stated above).
If for what reason ever you really want to "program graphically" you would need to use single actions for the assignments of the flag like this:
The A and B arrays would be just mentioned in the description of the single actions.
To actually show passing the A and B arrays you would need to add ActionsPins or Objects with ObjectFlows between the single Actions. Honestly, that would make the whole thing even more unreadable and hinder more than helping the reader:
We are learning in school that behavioral State diagram's transition has syntax:
list of events [guard condition] / list of actions
But I couldn't find any example on Internet where is used transition with multiple events. Is it really possible? If yes, how does it behave? Does it mean that transaction is realized when one of this events occurs (and of course condition is fulfilled)?
Yes, a transition can be triggered by one of many events in a list. You would use such a construct to avoid multiple lines between states, making a tidier diagram.
Here is what the 2.5 spec says:
14.2.3.9.2 Enabled Transitions
A Transition is enabled if and only if:
[ . . . ]
At least one of the triggers of the Transition has an Event that is matched by the Event type of the dispatched Event occurrence.
These logically OR'ed transitions are specified textually as a comma-separated list on the transition, as specified in §14.2.4.9:
[<trigger> [‘,’ <trigger>]* [‘[‘ <guard>’]’] [‘/’ <behavior-expression>]]
Unfortunately the UML spec is not specific in that respect (I thought, but Jim has the right answer). Anyway:
14.2.4.9 Transition
The default textual notation for a Transition is defined by the following BNF expression:
[<trigger> [‘,’ <trigger>]* [‘[‘ <guard>’]’] [‘/’ <behavior-expression>]]
Where is the standard notation for Triggers (see sub clause 13.3.4), is a Boolean expression for a guard, and the optional is an expression specifying the effect Behavior written in some vendor- specific or standard textual surface language (see sub clause 16.1). The trigger may be any of the standard trigger types. SignalEvent triggers and CallEvent triggers are not distinguishable by syntax and must be discriminated by their declaration elsewhere.
There are other places in the specs where this paragraph appears in similar way, but without explaining how multiple triggers will be treated. I assume that it's an OR-condition. But that's only an assumption. Alas, since you have not seen examples (me neither) it is probably an unknown fact. Just don't use it - that's indeed possible ;-) And if you happen to find an example, just ask the author what he meant. UML is about talking to each other.
I am designing UML Activity diagram in ArgoUML now.
I know that if I want to design condition like:
if(condition) {
doTrueAction();
} else {
doFalseAction();
}
It could be done in UML activity diagram like following:
But what if we have another condition inside the output of the previous decision? Like this:
if(condition) {
if(condition2) {
condition2TrueAction();
} else {
condition2FalseAction();
}
}else{
conditionFalseAction();
}
As you see conditionTrueOutput is being output and condition at the same time here. It seems to me that design is broken.
Edit: Or I should use fork element instead of decision (diamond) element?
I want to know how to design this correctly. Is there any rule?
There's a wrong assumption in your thoughts. A Decision has no output. It just has conditional control flows leaving it. Each can be guarded by a certain condition. This guard is written in square braces:
Note that I did not write the (implicit) [true] guard after the first test (rather by sloppiness when editing, but actually it can be omitted).
Edit My first though that your diagram has another flaw in that the actions have no control flow going out was incorrect. Actually Superstructures state that a missing outgoing control flow is equivalent to an FlowFinal after processing the Action. So your diagram is correct here.
Regarding your edit: as the comment says, this is for parallel continuation. Nested conditions need to be like shown above.
Edit2 As Ister noted in the comments, a Decision can have more than just the if and else control flow going out, but an arbitrary number greater than 1. The UML 2.5 states on p. 388:
If exactly one target of an unblocked outgoing edge accepts the token, then the token traverses the corresponding edge and all other offers are withdrawn. If multiple targets accept the token simultaneously, then the token traverses only one of the edges corresponding to the accepting targets, but which one is not determined by this specification.
In order to avoid non-deterministic behavior, the modeler should arrange that at most one guard evaluate to true for each incoming token. If it can be ensured that only one guard will evaluate to true, a conforming implementation is not required to evaluate the guards on all outgoing edges once one has been found to evaluate to true.
For use only with DecisionNodes, a predefined guard “else” (represented as an Expression with “else” as its operator and no operands) may be used for at most one outgoing edge. This guard evaluates to true only if the token is not accepted by any other outgoing edge from the DecisionNode.
It seems that your design is coherent but it is not a UML diagram. I suppose that you are mixing the activity diagram with the sequence diagram.
Your diagram looks like a sequence diagram but it tries to represent information that are related to the activity diagrams.
I suggest you this web site to investigate on the differences between the two diagrams, I hope it can help you.
Instead, by trying to use your design, what I suggest you is to insert another condition (e.g. SecondConditionAction) before the two condotion2.
I am receiving as input a "map" represented by strings, where certain nodes of the map have significance (s). For example:
---s--
--s---
s---s-
s---s-
-----s
My question is, what reasonable options are there for representing this input as an object.
The only option that really comes to mind is:
(1) Each position translated to node with up,down,left,right pointers. The whole object contains a pointer to top right node.
This seems like just a graph representation specific to this problem.
Thanks for the help.
Additionally, if there are common terms for this type of input, please let me know
Well, it depends a lot on what you need to delegate to those objects. OOP is basically about asking objects to perform things in order to solve a given problem, so it is hard to tell without knowing what you need to accomplish.
The solution you mention can be a valid one, as can also be having a matrix (in this case of 6x5) where you store in each matrix cell an object representing the node (just as an example, I used both approaches once to model the Conway's game of life). If you could give some more information on what you need to do with the object representation of your map then a better design can be discussed.
HTH