I'm developing a web application and I'm on the design stage. In the use cases, users can view their profile on a certain page, and they can also update their profile information from that page. Now I wonder if the Update Profile operation extend the View Profile operation in my case?
Simply speaking: do not use extend or include with use cases. A single use case bubble represents a unique added value the system under consideration returns to the actor. If you can not tell that something is added value, it is not an use case. Include/extend are in most cases used as functional decomposition. But use cases are synthesized, which is the exact opposite.
In your case (and where it comes to CRUD) think of what is behind the scenes. Here it is dealing with a profile. So you could call it Maintain Profile which includes (in internal steps) the viewing and editing. Usually you can simply constrain functional parts. Furthermore your system description will be more lucid when using less bubbles. Remember: if your use cases start looking like spider webs, your system design is most likely wrong.
Related
I am to create a UseCase diagram for an existing web program. Unfortunately I am very unsure about UseCase, I like to mix it with other UMLs.
For this purpose, I have picked out the order page.
There are 3 different users, the admin, driver and customer.
The admin can view all orders and has the ability to create a new order.
The driver can see his own orders, as well as orders he can accept.
The customer can see his own orders, as well as place a new order.
There is a possibility to choose between the standard view (row view) and a widget view of the meta information of the order.
Last but not least, there is the possibility to click on one of the orders and a single order overview will open.
Based on this I have now created a UseCase diagram, my first question would be: Is this all correct, with the informations i gave?
Will this then become a huge UseCase diagram? Or should this rather be done page by page for web applications? For example, if this is the order overview and I now have the use case that I change the page (In this case, when I go to the single order overview). And is there a way to make this look cleaner? All these extends/includes on 1 place looks confusing.
I'm afraid I don't know if I'm doing this only partially right, or completely missing the point.
What you need to remember is that Use Cases are about added value and not about technical realization. That's really hard for tech people and that's why they always start functional decomposition. So looking at the above, the only use case is Show Order and nothing else.
Login is no use case from that perspective. It is just a constraint you apply to certain use cases.
You just have focused on the Show aspect but likely there's also add/edit/delete. Such CRUD can be dealed with in variuous ways and there's no general rule. There might be a Manage and a Show or what ever combination along with constraints.
Basically, when your UC diagram resembles a spider web your design is likely broken.
I am new to object oriented design and I wanted to do my first ever UML use case Diagram on a simple application which contains toolbar on the top left corner. The toolbar is called files and when the user clicks on it,a drop down menu is opened with options to open a slide,save slide,make new slide and exit the application.
My question is, am I doing it correct with Use-Case inheritance(Generalization) ?
This is my diagram.
I am sorry to disapoint you, but I have to tell you that this practice is just plain wrong:
From the point of view of the semantics, the use-case specialization means that Open presentation is a special form of Check file, and Save file as well, and that the actor could use them interchangeably and independently. But this cannot be what you mean: exiting a presentation is at best a sub-part of checking a file
From the point of view of the purpose, a use-case should represent a user goal. It's part of the problem space, i.e. what the user wants to achieve. It's not part of the solution space, i.e. how the user will achieve it. A toolbar is not a goal: it's a user-interface element.
From the engineering practice perspective, use-case should not be used for user-interface design. It's not my own statement, but that of Jacobson, Booch and Rumbaugh, the founding fathers of UML:
The problem is that the [use-case] descriptions often contain implicit decisions about user-interfaces. Later, when the user interface designers suggest suitable user-interfaces for the use-case , they may be limited by those decisions.
in The unified software development process, page 164
So in conclusion, it's a bad idea to start use-cases from the user-interface. It locks you into your own design and ignores the user experience. You should focus instead only on the user needs. THe same use-case could then be used whether you'll implement it using a GUI interface, a chatbot interface, or a a voice-based interface.
While drawing Use Case diagram, one thing you should focus on is, the actual meaning of it and the purpose of drawing it.
A Use Case refers to what the users in respect of their type are able to do in your System... Anything inside the boundary is what system is capable of doing or what it can provide as a service to its users.
While naming the use cases, you should only use verbs and actions, for example:
1- Login | 2- Submit a Request | 3- Update Profile Description
You should avoid any nouns in them.
There are several relationships that exist in a Use Case Diagram among use cases, and a relationship among actors and use cases of the system, And They are as follows:
Association: the only relationship that can exist between an actor and a use case; Which says the actor is initiator of this use case, or is the one who is caple of operating the use case.
In the example above, User is caple of loggin in and submitting a complaint.
Include: Use Cases can include one or more use cases. When a use case includes another use case, it means the included use case or use cases happen all the time and are part of the initial use case.
Paying fees is included, because user has to pay the fees in signing up process, it has to be done, and it's part of the baseline path of the scenario.
Extend: When a use case is not happening all the time, and is part of your alternative path ( Alternative path of the complete scnario for this use case ), the use case should be extended to the base use case.
Forget password is extended to Login use case, because it doesn't happen all the time, and it's part of a alternative path of Login scenario.
Generalization: When there exist several different ways that a use case can be performed and completed, we use generalization. The inheritent use cases should all be of the same type as the inherited use case.
Submitting a complaint can be done in several different ways, in this case, we need to seprate each use case and inherit from from the submit a complaint use case which includes paying fees, this shows that, paying fees is a part of every type of complaint which is submitted.
So basically i'm wondering if I'm thinking correctly. In an e-commerce environment does the order of a product have a relationship to the admin use case of managing orders? Once an order has gone through is the admin then going to be able to see the order through a relationship between the 2 use cases. I've provided an image for reference in my case.Here is the image
TL;DR
No, there is no extension here. Those will be two separate UCs.
Explanation
First let me focus on the goal of the Use Case diagram. This diagram is intended to show functions of the system and users (or more broadly actors) engaged in those functions. It is not used to show how data flow through the system or what are steps of the processing. There are other diagrams to do that.
As a rule of thumb, something is a good use case if you can log into the system, perform only the action of this single use case and then log out.
Extends (Includes works pretty much the same, it's just stronger) means that when you run the extended UC you can include the other use case as well. In other words in your specific example when Customer logs to E-Commerce to place an order he can while placing an order also choose to additionally receive and manage order (BTW I would reconsider this UC, you probably have few separate UCs here like Complete order, Dispatch order or Reject order) in which case additionally an Admin is need. Even if you invert Extends, it's still not what you want. Those two UC happen totally separately even though the order processed by Admin is the very same one placed by Customer.
I did not search for too long but I did not find a case where a given use case, associated to one actor, is extended or included by another use case, associated to another actors.
A use case describe the usage of your system by a given actor so you do not have any other actor involved.
I'm making a website where the visitor can:
View posts.
Only use regular or Facebook registration if they're not signed in.
Only login with Facebook if they've registered with Facebook.
Only use regular login or password reset if they've registered in the regular way.
Only create posts or unregister if they're authenticated.
I don't understand how I should model the different use-cases available for the visitor. Since an unregistered visitor can become registered visitor and a registered visitor can become an unregistered visitor, they can do the same thing on the site, they just take different paths.
Are these conditions important for a use-case diagram? Is it too specific to say that regular registration requires many fields to be filled in, while Facebook registration only requires the visitor to choose a username?
Can a use-case extend itself? Like if the registration fails, the visitor repeats the registration again.
Edit: I made a guess how to do the diagram:
Edit 2: Or maybe simpler like this?
As #granier said, Your second model is far better and #Thomas Kilian's points are remakable.
I want to say your mistakes and offer a new Use Case Diagram. I think there are some mistakes in your models (Logically and Practically):
Too detailed Use Case Diagram (model 1) (please see my previous post TIPS here)
Username is not Use Case.
There is not extend relationship between Login and Reset Password. (model 2)
Login associated with registered user? All users can trigger Login Use Case (even successful or not).
Wrong uses of include and extend and inheritance relationships (model 1).
Please consider my offered Use Case Diagram:
Additionally, you can add pre-conditions and post-conditions to your use case documentation. But, they do not change the Use Cases.
Your second model is far better. Use Cases generalization is not used often even in specification an exemple is provided. .
Since the user should be able to register, the actor "Unregistered User" could be removed. No ?
I use Use Cases generalization in one case only : when i want that several Use Cases get the same includes or extension.
There is nothing wrong with showing constraints as you did it. What I do is usually to create an overview diagram like your #2. And then focusing on single use cases showing just their relations to actors and requirements - and eventually constraints derived from the latter.
Don't fall in the trap of functional decomposition and avoid <<include>>/<<extend>> or even worse generalizations. Use cases are not used to decompose functional parts but synthesize them. A use case shows a single added value the system under consideration delivers to one of its actors.
Login is no use case since it has no added value. It is a constraint which you can attach to use cases.
As always: the UML specs are no good read to understand Use Case synthesis. It's written by eggheads with little business background. Look into Bittner/Spence instead.
Case(Detailed): User select some files in android applicaiton and send SOAP request to WebService to set the selected files as Favorite.
Case(With few words): User want to set some files as favorites
Sequence Diagram is:
User-->FileBrowser-->WebService-->DbManager-->Database
So, is the below diagram correct or i am missing something?
Your diagram looks fine. However, I noticed from your other question that you are now mixing business and technical aspects. If you want to do a use case synthesis for the business (which is the most common application of that) you must not start mixing technical aspects. Having said this, Login is not a business use case. A use case describes in short terms the added value which an actor receives when applying it. On a business level, a login is just a constraint since it does not add any value.
As an advice:
Start with use cases on a pure business perspective.
Think what actually is added value.
Which are the stakeholders?
What are their requirements?
Which requirements can be synthesized to use cases?
Only after that start a technical design. In that you may use use cases on a technical level where you may describe a Login use case as part of an authentication sub-system.
Should you not include some kind of system, whereby user and server is outside of it? My teachers always commented on involving the system.
List all the users outside the system. The use case serves as an answer to:"What will the system do?". Is the database used by external users/systems? In that case it's better to represent it as a seperate actor.
Perhaps an idea to write a full use case before making a use casediagram.
Two things are not according to UML:
The include dependency should have an open arrowhead pointing to 'selct file'.
The word include must be surrounded by «guillemets»
Recommendations:
Use a consistent naming convention for the use cases. It is common to use imperative style, with at least one verb and one noun e.g. "Select file" and "Choose favorite files".
Draw a system boundary (rectangle) around the use cases, leaving the actors outside of the boundary. Enter a descriptive name inside the boundary, e.g. "Android app".