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an unblocked outgoing edge accepts the token, then the token traverses the corresponding edge and all other offers are withdrawn.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.
Related
What is a UML fragment is using in a case representing a check operation that either stops the further execution on a failed check or lets it go, kind of a programming statement if role != 'admin': break:?
I found the assert fragment seems to fit the case.
The idea on a diagram:
Is the fragment used properly to represent that operation change_sensetive_settings() is executing only if a user has admin role?
I'm not a big fan of assert, which seems to be meant for visual procedureal programming rather than clean design of valid behavior. There is not much information on assert fragment in the standard:
The interactionOperator assert designates that the CombinedFragment represents an assertion. The sequences of the operand of the assertion are the only valid continuations. All other continuations result in an invalid trace.
But the way assert is used here, seems confusing in this regard: you just show a constraint { user.role == 'admin } on the server lifeline, whereas the continuation will result in a message being initiated on the client side.
To disambiguate this diagram, I'd recommend to enclose in the assert fragment the sequence made of the register_user() message, followed by the return message and your constraint. This would clearly relate the outcome regarding the user role constraint to the registration.
But this only tells a part of the story. Because, what does it mean in pratice that "All other continuations result in an invalid trace" ? Assert, just tells an assumption. Is there anything ahead of this interaction that makes this assumption realistic? If not what should happen if the user has insufficient authorisations?
For all these reasons, I'd rather recommend to use here and alt to show the normal flow, but also suggest that if the user does not have the right authorisation, something should happen (and on which side: client or server).
No, I think assert is not used correctly. Here is why:
The specification defines:
The interactionOperator assert designates that the CombinedFragment
represents an assertion. The sequences of the operand of the assertion
are the only valid continuations. All other continuations result in an
invalid trace.
That means, the state invariant {user.role='admin'} is the only valid continuation after the reply to the register_user() message. This would rule out other outcomes. I don't think, this is what you had in mind.
So, simply remove the assert fragment. Since the sequence diagram only shows one possible scenario, it doesn't mean, that other scenarios are not valid. You could have another sequence diagram, where the state invariant is {user.role='student'}.
If you want to show more scenarios in one diagram, you could use an alt fragment. However, as others have pointed out, the purpose of the sequence diagram is not visual programming. Therefore, striving for a complete description of all possible scenarios is not appropriate.
minor mistakes
There are some minor mistakes in the diagram. Most of them have been pointed out by others, but to make this a complete answer:
The first message could be a found message. Then the circle would be filled and the name of the message would be on the arrow. It could also come from a gate. This would be shown by originating the arrow from the frame. I would recommend the latter.
The state invariant should probably move down below the reception of change_sensitive_settings because the user could still try to change them. Only the server can decide to reject this request. Or it must move to the client lifeline, if you want to specify that the client only sends the message, if s/he is an admin.
The arrow at the end of the diagram should be dashed, since it is the reply to the synchronuous message it begins with. And again, it should end in a black circle denoting a lost message or, better, at the frame of the diagram.
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 ?
In UML 2.5.1, the initial pseudostate of a state machine is defined as follows:
An initial Pseudostate represents a starting point for a Region; that
is, it is the point from which execution of its contained behavior
commences when the Region is entered via default activation. It is the
source for at most one Transition, which may have an associated effect
Behavior, but not an associated trigger or guard. There can be at
most one initial Vertex in a Region.
In other words, a UML state machine should almost always contain exactly one initial pseudostate, which should have exactly one outgoing transition.
However, can an initial pseudostate have incoming transitions as well? For example:
I cannot find anything forbidding it in the UML specification, yet I cannot find any example online where this case happen, therefore I was wondering whether or not I overlooked anything.
EDIT: To go into more detail, if we look into the OCL constraints stated in the specification, we can only find the following one that affects outgoing transitions (section 14.5.6.7):
inv: (kind = PseudostateKind::initial) implies (outgoing->size() <= 1)
but I cannot find any constraint regarding incoming transitions
EDIT2: I have just realized that my model is wrong! Considering this sentence of the specification (cited above): "It is the source for at most one Transition, which may have an associated effect Behavior, but not an associated trigger or guard."
Therefore the transition between init and s1 should actually have zero triggers, instead of having e1 as a trigger.
Note that while this does not invalidate the initial question.
I see nothing in the UML 2.5.1 Specification that prohibits a transition whose target is the initial pseudostate.
Such a transition would be meaningless at best and confusing at worst, which is likely why no examples are found.
Edit: see the comments!
On p. 423 UML 2.5:
15.7.18 InitialNode [Class]
15.7.18.4 Constraints
• no_incoming_edges
An InitialNode has no incoming ActivityEdges.
inv: incoming->isEmpty()
N.B. If you intend to have a self-transition for e1 then why not just using that? The Initial can anyway have only on singular outgoing edge, namely to the first state (here s1).
No this is not allowed. And why would one Do that? As you already stated in the cited text,it can only have one outgoing edge without any guard. So what is the added value, as you cannot reuse anything.
I think the text is pretty clear as-is: "[An initial Pseudostate] is the point from which execution of its contained behavior commences when the Region is entered via default activation." If you connect a transition back around to the initial psuedostate, the initial psuedostate is no longer "the point from which execution of its contained behavior commences," it is something else, and is therefore undefined.
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 want to create a UML sequence diagram (see below) where I have an alt frame with two conditions (status equals foo or bar). In the foo case I send a synchronous message from A to B, get the return message and then proceed with the rest of the sequence diagram (call spam()). In the bar case I send another synchronous message from A to C to but there will be no return. I'm trying to model a function call in SW which doesn't return (it blocks forever on a semaphore) so in that case I will never proceed to spam(). Can this be expressed in a sequence diagram? I can exclude the return value but that would only tell me that there is no return value, not that there is no return at all. Can this only be expressed by splitting the diagram in two and handle the conditions separately or is there a better diagram to express this?
You can place a duration constraint between the call and the return.
Under normal circumstances, such a constraint would be represented by an integer followed by a time unit, such as "10 seconds" or by a range such as "[1;10) seconds".
Your question is interesting in that you want to model infinity.
I would go about doing it like this:
However I must admit that I am unsure if my formulation violates OMG's UML 2.5 standard. I did not find anything in the standard which explicitly disallows using 'infinity' as a time unit; the standard does mention that the time should be relative.