We're currently designing an application with an exit button, meaning the user can exit the application at any time. Now, we're not sure how to write this down.
Right now, we're thinking about doing it like shown in the picture below, because this is the only way we know how to do this. However, we feel like there must be an easier way. Also: if we do this for our whole application (which is quite big), we'd get a whole ton of decision and end nodes...
Your model looks ok. Instead of having multiple Final Flows you could lead all flows to a single one (just as an option).
Without knowing the exact requirements, here is another way:
The exit button is treated as exception. This could as well be written as
Related
I am trying to design an activity diagram for an image editing application. Let's say that the application has one adjustment to edit an image. that's brightness. When the user opens the application he can change the brightness again and again. Then finally save it. That's really not a loop. but it's a repetitive process. How can I represent such a process. I have found stack answers for looping through documents and for loops. But didn't found a matching scenario for like this.
Thank you!
Oh, but why do you say it is not a loop? It is.
Sorry, no reasonable drawing tool at hand, so this will be textual
Let's look at a pseudocode:
open app (image as attribute)
while decide to continue to brighten the image do
brighten the image
loop
As you can see you do loop and your condition to loop or finish it depends on the decision to brighten or finish working with the app.
The brightening itself can be more complex (e.g. may have some selection of settings like level or method of brightening, it may even have the ability to break the brightenin or undoing) but it is still the loop.
Out of this solution to represent a loop you can use options 2 and 3 easily.
I am new in doing an activity and currently, I am trying to draw one based on given description.
I enter into doubt on a particular section as I am unsure if it should be 'split'.
Under the "Employee", the given description is as follows:
Employee enter in details about physical damage and cleanliness on the
machine. For the cleanliness, there must be a statement to indicate
that the problem is no longer an issue.
As such, I use a foreach as a means to describe that there should be 2 checks - physical and cleanliness (see diagram in the link), before it moves on to the next activity under the System - for the system to record the checks.
Thus, am I on the right track? Thank you in advance for any replies.
Your example is no valid UML. In order to make it proper you need to enclose the fork/join in a expansion region like so:
A fork/join does not accept any sematic labels. They just split the control flow into several parallel ones which join at the end.
However, this still seems odd since you would probably have some control for the different inspections being entered. So I'd guess there's a decision which loops through multiple inspection entries. Personally I use regions only for handling interrupts. ADs are nice to a certain level. But sometimes a tabular text (like suggested by Cockburn) is just easier to write and read. Graphical programming is not the ultimate answer (unlike 42).
First, the 'NO' branch of the decision node must lead somewhere (at the end?).
After, It differs if you want to show the process for ONE or MULTIPLE inspections. But the most logical way is to represent the diagram for an inspection, because you wrote inspection without S ! If you want represent more than one inspection, you can use decision and merge node to represent loop that stop when there is no more inspection.
In Behavior Driven Development style of writing automated functional tests, it is generally understood that Givens should be the pre-condition that the system must be in, in order to begin the test, When should be the user action performed and Then should be asserting whether the observed matches the expected and fail or pass the test accordingly.
Off late my team has started performing assertions in Givens and Whens too which lead me to wonder if this is a correct practice.
For e.g -
Given a user with xyz privileges is logged in
When I click on the abc tab
Then records should be displayed
Should the Given in this test actually assert that the logged in user indeed has xyz privileges or assume the user has required privileges and just perform login
Also should the When assert that tab is visible before clicking?
If "logging in" is a behaviour that's interesting* and you need examples to illustrate it** then it should be a "When", with the context in which it happens being the "Given", and the outcome that results being the "Then".
This is the case for any behaviour you need to illustrate with an example.
However, sometimes it can be useful to make assertions in a Given, just to check that the context really is set up properly. Sometimes when people start adopting BDD the environments can be a bit flaky, and it's handy to know if it's your scenario finding a bug that made it fail, or something earlier in the process. So for that reason, you might find assertions there.
The Given doesn't concern itself with how the system got into that state, though. If it has assertions, it should merely be to check that it is.
Another form I've seen is a check that the system is in the correct state for the context, with corrective action if it isn't.
Note that these are largely interim patterns. They can be helpful while teams are adopting BDD and getting their pipelines and automated deployments into shape.
Assertions which check the results of the "When" are part of the outcome, so part of the "Then". I can't imagine a case where you'd need to check the results of a "When" without it being an outcome. If you've got one, please give me an example.
We discourage using clicking and UI details in scenarios. Work out what you're trying to achieve, and do that. Hide the clicking under the covers.
Most of the time automated scenarios aren't actually there to catch bugs; they're living documentation that helps people think about what they're trying to achieve and what the system already does, thus encouraging good design and preventing bugs in the first place.
I'd say something like "navigate to the ABC tab" and just do it; you'll get a relevant exception if it isn't there, and that won't happen as often as people reading the scenario will.
* It's logging in. It probably isn't.
** It's logging in. You probably don't.
Assertions in Givens and Whens are generally an indicator of immaturity of step definitions. So I might put one in a step that I am working on, but I wouldn't keep it there for very long.
I'd implement your step
Given a user with xyz privileges is logged in
as something like
'Given a user with xyz privileges is logged in' do
user = create_user(privileges: xyz)
login_as user: user
end
I would expect that the create_user method would be trusted pretty quickly and would not need an assertion. Same for the login_as method. (if methods like this aren't working properly you'd expect many scenarios to be broken)
Notice how this code makes it clear that there are two things going on and provides/uses an api that you would expect many other stepdefs to use. And how any assertion you might want to keep really belongs in the helper methods not in the step def.
There are no strict rules however in my experience I find it handy to define that there are no assertions there so it is clear what is actually tested and the test itself will run faster.
In the case if your abc tab is not displayed it shouldn't be clickable and then the test will fail either when identifying the object to click or when performing the next step(depends on the tools and method you use).
However you should make sure that the actual implementation of the test is not cheating and working with internals that are able to trigger a click even if the actual component isn't.
There is another point about the Given, there normally it is recommended to set up the environment for the test. This means you make sure that in your system there is a user and that user has been logged in. It makes no meaning to very that as you set it up, however if any failure occur you should fail fast to know what is wrong.
Generally I would be careful about using assertions in the Given or When steps in the automation code.
However, I use login steps like this all over the place in my code as - when used correctly - can turn the step into a piece of context rather than an assertion itself.
For instance:
Is this user logged in?
Yes => Do Nothing.
No => Log out, then Log in as this user
In the example you gave, we know that we need the specific user to be logged in for this scenario to work, however we do not know if there is a different user logged in (other scenarios may have been run before it). If you use this step as a check to make sure that the correct user is logged in (as in my example), it is part of the context and it will speed up run time of the automation as you won't have to log in before and log out after every scenario.
If I have two frames in my GUI. (Assume 1st frame ="A" and 2nd frame="B").
when clicked on "A", it redirects to "B".
when Clicked on "B", it redirects to "A".
So it is continuously looping.
Is it possible to draw the Activity Diagram without adding the final node?
note: But anyone can click on the cross mark on top right corner and exit from the program. (Is that means I have to add final node to everywhere??)
You would model it with an interrupt flow like this:
The dashed boundary represents an interruptible region from where a flash-formed flow can exit at any time.
The Exit has not outgoing edges and thus ends the control flow. You might optionally add an outgoing flow to a flow final, though.
Alternatively, if there are many exceptions you could use this variant:
I doubt that is is really UML compliant, but as I say: "if it serves communication, it's fine". And from the context this looks rather evident.
Yes. An Activity ends when an Action ends and no other Action has the tokens it needs to start. You can find many fUML test cases that work like this, without explicit start and end nodes.
I'm preparing the sequence diagram for a project. I made the following sequence diagram for a retailer updating his inventory
It's confusing to me because this is the first time I use this technique with a real project.i have used database as an object here and i don't know whether its right or wrong. And another thing i need to clarify is by using Updating i meant for both editing/add new item To the inventory. Is it wrong to do like that way? or else can we draw it separately?
The following image is part of the updating process, would any one take a look and correct me if I did any mistake.(UpdateUI- User interface).Thanks in Advance.
It does not look right. There are a couple of issues:
Your database will likely never issue any messages
Actions inside a DB are usually not exposed. You normally only call CRUD from outside for a DB.
You mix synch/asynch (likely unwillingly). Filled arrows are synch, unfilled ones as asynch.
Main Page is likely the V in MVC and UpdateUI the C. So the controller will act on a click from the user and interact with the DB.
So just from my guts here is a more reasonable sketch: