Does anyone know how to describe (specify) the use-case that includes another usecase in the use-case specification table?
For example, I have a use-case "change password" that includes use-case "login" (this is just an example, i know that login should just be in the pre-condition of the use-case)
May i specify it like this?
Use-case identity: Change password
Actor: User
Pre-condition: ...
Normal flow:
Do use-case "Login"
....
....
....
What is the proper way to specify the use-case that includes another use-case?
It depends on the further rules and conventions used together with the "use-case specification table" document. Consult your company documents for the rules (and some examples).
Overall yes, your approach is valid.
The "Login" use case might be also invoked implicitly if you'd move it to the "Pre-condition: User is logged-in"
Even for free text without any Software Requirements Management tool consider using the "Name and unique-number" referencing best practice
To wrap your head around it I'd recommend (among other Google-able resources) to read the Alistair Cockburn's book "Writing Effective Use Cases", draft version is available online on his site - http://alistair.cockburn.us/get/2465
EDIT: after #BobRodes's challenge to share some alternative methodology
For more serious work consider using a Requirements Management tool, or at least evaluate some tools to adopt the best practices they support/recommend.
For one example see the link below explaining how Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect formalizes work with Use Cases and how Use Case traceability works and how it can generate documentation, UML Activity Diagram etc.
Sparx Systems: Model-Driven Use Case Analysis with Structured Scenarios, Webinar August 2013, 18min video
For another example of managing Use Case traceability and what usually happens after the Use Cases are written see
Jama Software: Jama Recorded Demo, 30min video
You might want to look into "use case narrative". In such a narrative, one of the things you will do is list included use cases and extension points. So, add a section called "Includes:" to your narrative, before the normal flow section.
Edit: Here's a bit more from Tom Pender's "The UML Bible":
The features of a use case narrative aren't standardized, but these
are common elements in wide use:
Use case initiation, or trigger, describes how to start a use case.
Assumptions define conditions that must be true before the use case may execute, but are not tested by the use case.
Preconditions define conditions that must be true before the use case may execute, and are tested by the use case.
The use case dialog explains how the user (whether an actor or another use case) interacts with the system during the execution of
the use case.
Use case terminations define the different mechanisms that can cause the use case to stop execution.
Post conditions define the state of the system that must be true when the use case ends. This helps prevent use cases from leaving
the system in an unstable condition for other use cases that follow.
Minimum guarantees describe what the actors can expect from a use case, no matter what happens during the execution of the use case.
Successful guarantees describe what the actors can expect from a use case when it completes successfully.
Although these elements are valuable, they are by no means exclusive.
Definitely look into other books and online resources on use cases,
and augment the narrative to support your own method of development.
So, perhaps I shouldn't have said that you "will" list included use cases and extension points, instead saying that you "may" do so. I like to put them in, so I don't have to keep referring back to the diagrams to look them up. Of course, you can just mention them in the dialog, too.
In UML there is standard relationship named include. Start relationship from including UseCase and end on included UseCase. See UseCase section of UML Superstructure document. UML website
Related
Imagine that we are building a Library system. Our use cases might be
Borrow book
Look up book
Manage membership
Imagine that we can fulfill these use cases by a librarian person or a machine. We need to realize these use cases.
Should we draw different use case realizations for different flows?
If not, it is very different to borrow a book from a machine and a person. How can we handle it?
Moreover, what if we have updated version of library machines some day? (e.g. one with keyboard and the other is with touch screen) What should we do then? The flow stays the same, however the hardware and the software eventually be different.
What would you use to realize use cases and why?
It might be a basic question, but I failed to find concrete examples on the subject to understand what is right. Thank you all in advance.
There is no single truth or one way you "should" do it. I will give you my approach, based on the Unified Process.
The use case technique is primarily used to describe a dialog between a human user (actor) and an application. It is modeled as an ellipse and further specified as an activity diagram or just a list of steps: 1 The actor does A, 2 The system does B, 3 The actor does C etc. In this approach, the application is regarded as a black box.
A "use case realization" describes how the system performs its steps (white box), e.g. in terms of collaborating components, transparent to the user.
It is possible, but much less common, to have so-called business use cases. In that case, the "system" represents an enterprise or a business unit. In your case, it would be the library. The "actor" represents an external person or organization, e.g. a client or a supplier. In your case, it would be a client. With business use cases, the library is regarded as a black box. The steps are still in format "actor does A; system does B", but here, it is not specified which of the library's actions are performed by humans and which by applications. The system is the organization, interfacing with external actors, regardless of whether this is implemented by employees or by applications.
A "business use case realization" specifies how the system performs its steps (white box) and specifies which parts are done by employees and which parts by machines.
Now, let me answer you questions one by one.
Question 1.
If you have described your use case as a business use case, and it is at such a high level of abstraction that the steps for client-librarian interaction are the same as for client-machine interaction, then you will have one business use case "Borrow book" and two business use case realizations for this business use case.
However, it is more common practice to have only use cases for user-application interaction. If the client interacts with the system in the same way as a librarian would do on behalf of the client, then you will have only one use case "Borrow book", with actor "Person". This actor has two specializations: "Client" and "Librarian". There will be only one use case realization per use case.
Otherwise, you would have one use case "Borrow book online" describing the flow of events when a client interacts directly with the application, connected to actor "Client" and another use case "Borrow book for client" describing the flow of events when a librarian interacts with the application while talking to the client. The latter use case has "Librarian" as its actor. Again, there will be only one use case realization per use case.
You may choose to model the Client-Librarian interaction separately, or not at all, depending on the purpose of your model.
Question 2.
Let's take use case "Borrow book online". You may have two use case realizations for this use case: one for the keyboard machine and one for the touch screen machine. If these use case realizations are very similar, then I would just make only one use case realization and describe the fact that there are two possible input devices inside that single realization.
Question 3.
For a business use case realization, I would use BPMN 2.0 or a UML activity diagram. These are well suited for business workflow specification.
For a normal use case realization, I usually make a sequence diagram, where the lifelines in those diagrams refer to components defined in a common component diagram. In the left margin of the sequence diagrams, I usually write the steps of the use case in UML note symbols. The sequence diagram focuses on the interaction between components, using their interfaces. This gives a nice overview of the collaboration between components in the context of a particular use case.
For more information, please refer to my white paper Which UML models should we make?. The use case realization is described on page 19.
UML is method-agnostic. Even when there are no choices to make, there are different approaches to modeling, fo example:
Have one model and refine it succesfully getting it through the stages requirements, analysis (domain model of the problem), design (abstraction to be implemented), implementation (classes that are really in the code).
Have different models for different stage and keep them all up to date
Have successive models, without updating the previous stages.
keep only a high level design model to get the big picture, but without implementation details that could be found in the code.
Likewise, for your question, you could consider having different alternative models, or one model with different alternatives grouped in different packages (to avoid naming conflicts). Personally, I’d go for the latter, because the different alternatives should NOT be detailed too much. But ultimately, it’s a question of cost and benefits in your context.
By the way, Ivar Jacobson’s book, the Object advantage applies OO modeling techniques to business process design. So UML is perfectly suitable for a human solution. It’s just that the system under consideration is no longer an IT system, but a broader organisational system, in which IT represents some components among others.
UML has collaboration elements to show different implementations. The use cases are anchors since the added value for the actors does not change. However, you can realize these use cases in different ways. And that is where the collaborations come into play. A collaboration looks like a use case but has a dashed border. And you draw a realize relation from one or many collaborations towards a use case. Inside the collaborations you show how the different implementation's classes collaborate (hence the name).
P.213 of UML 2.5 in paragraph 11.7 Collaborations:
The primary purpose of Collaborations is to explain how a system of communicating elements collectively accomplish a specific task or set of tasks without necessarily having to incorporate detail that is irrelevant to the explanation. Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns.
A CollaborationUse represents the application of the pattern described by a Collaboration to a specific situation involving specific elements playing its collaborationRoles.
Is use case narrative part of the UML?
A textual description of the business event and how the user will interact with the system to accomplish the task.
First of all, UML means Unified Modelling Language. It is a language which helps in designing and modelling software systems. So use case is not a part of UML. UML is a tool that helps to represent Use Cases (Among other things). And Use Case Modelling is an approach in requirement engineering for understanding and describing the functional requirements of a System.
It can be both narrative and graphical. Textual representation part is called use case specification while the graphical representation part is called Use case diagram.
So what is a use case? A use case is a summary of scenarios for a single task or a goal like "pay bill" in the above image. And a Use case model typically consists of several use cases. It helps to provide a clear picture about the external actors (both users and external systems),the functional requirements of the system and the relationships among them which in turn leads to a better design.
I'm going to assume that you mean "use case narrative." That given, the short answer to your question is "no."
A "use case narrative" is a document that describes the entire behavior of a use case. The UML doesn't define documentation methodologies specifically, so this isn't part of the UML specification.
The UML community has yet to build any sort of consensus on a term for this document (and, indeed, exactly what it ought to contain). Nipun Sampath, in his answer, calls it a "use case specification," for example, and muszeo calls it a "textual description," which, of course, it is.
The behavior of a use case would be modeled in UML as an activity diagram. So, an activity diagram is a diagram of a use case narrative.
For more information on use case narratives, see this post.
I believe you mean Use Case, rather than User Case. The description you give (textual description of steps to accomplish a business task using a system) is broadly what Use Cases are about.
To be clear, a Use Case is a kind of functional requirement; namely a description of a process that a person and/or system (role(s)) performs with information to accomplish an objective that has business value. With Use Cases this specification generally starts with a model ('blobs on a page') which illustrates the process, system and actor (role) context, with a textual description and/or supporting models (e.g. Activity Diagrams) to express the steps of the process. There are other ways to express functional requirements -- User Stories and BPMN process charts are two other examples that achieve the same thing but in different ways. You may be confusing Use Cases and User Stories, perhaps.
I have a question about uml and extend notation of use-case.
How I can extend all use case.
For example if I created a connection down use case that extend almost all use case, but I don't want to connect all with the notation on the use case diagram cause is very orrible to see. How can I do?
First of all: the importance of Use Cases
Modeling Use Case Diagrams (Use Case Modeling) is SO important step in Software Analysis and Use Case Modeling should be performed by professional Analysts:
All estimations (Time, Budget, Resources and etc.) are performed based an Use Cases.
In some Use Case Driven Methodologies, all subsequent steps are based on Use Cases.
and etc.
Secondly: Knowing Use Case Modeling Traps.
In Use Case Modeling there are some traps that we need to conside related to your question:
(Trap #1: Use cases that users don't understand.) (see reference 1)
Use cases are a way to represent user requirements, which describe
what the user needs to be able to do with the product. Use cases
should focus on tasks a user needs to accomplish with the help of the
system, so they should relate to the user's business processes.
Your users should be able to read and review use cases to find
possible problems, such as missing alternative flows or incorrectly
handled exceptions. If users cannot relate to use cases, there's a
problem. Perhaps they're written too much from a technical, rather
than business, perspective.
(Trap #4: Describing specific user interface elements and actions) (see reference 1)
Write "essential" use cases that describe the interactions between the
user and the system at an abstract level, without incorporating
user interface specifics. The use case description should not include
a screen design, although simple user interface prototypes can be
valuable to facilitate the use case exploration.
(2. Not having clear business goals for every use case) (see reference 2)
(6. Specifying use cases in too much detail) (see reference 2)
Thirdly: Use Case Modeling is in the Requirement phage of methodologies.
We should not put common implementation methods in Use Cases. Common methods in implementation handled by other diagrams in next steps of methodology. (maybe in Design Model) So, if we put all common methods in Use Case Model, the number of use cases increases a lot. (and our estimation as mentioned in first part goes wrong)
You can't - and it's nonsense. A use case shows added value for an actor. Extensions to use cases are very rare. In most cases people try to apply functional decomposition and mistake a step of actions recurring in multiple use cases as "partial" use cases. They aren't! If you are trying to do what you describe you went the wrong path. You should instead think why and where your use case synthesis broke.
I strongly recommend reading Bittner/Spence to get the right idea what use cases are all about.
You can use use inheritance.
Something like this, use cases B and C are extended since this is inherited.
But as #Kilian said, it would be interesting that you explain why you need a such model.
[Original Title] : Does an actor need to point directly in use case diagram?
or can I do it like this?
in this Use Case Diagram, I want to say that actor can use any use case in the pointed group-of-use-case.
does this kind of thing allowed?
Edit #1
The reason why I ask this question, is because when I create this use case there's a lot of line intersecting each other that makes me confuse.
And there's a comment :
It would be better to split that into smaller diagrams
does it mean like this?
Edit #2
after reading comment :
A UseCase specifies a set of actions performed by its subjects, which yields an observable result that is of value for one or more Actors or other stakeholders of each subject.
so I decided to change to this :
is this how a use case diagram should be?
Edit #3
CONCLUSION
An actor should point directly to use case
Read more the detail about how a Use Case Diagram should be in comment on this question
To be UML compliant you can not do that. But I guess one can understand what you are trying to communicate.
As a side note: Login is not a business use case. It is a constraint. Also with CRUD use cases I would not separate them but have a Maintain <object> instead (which itself is some borderline use case since maintaining something is not directly business relevant). You can constrain maintenance operations to certain actors separately.
Edit Regarding Login (one of my favorites): Use cases are most commonly used to describe business context (exactly as you are doing). So when looking from a business perspective, a Login is not a use case, but a simple constraint (you can do the business relevant things only when you are logged in).
Now for the Manage/Maintain use cases. They are on a similar level. Usually the "managing" itself is not directly business related. In many cases the focus on the real business was lost. So instead the reason why you manage something is the real use case (e.g. Correct User Data, Collect User Data). This is quite challenging and I confess that sometimes I also fall back to Manage. Most people don't bother but doing a good job requires to think over basics and not adopt bad habits.
How do I determine what should I add to my use case diagrams? 1 for each button/form? Should things like sort and search be included? Or are they under "list items" for example? Though, a list of items seems understood?
The Use Case diagram is intended to help define the high-level business tasks that are important, not a list of functions of the system. For example, a system for use in customer service might involve a research task of looking up information to help someone on a support call.
Most of the literature describes Use Cases as a starting point for defining what the system needs to accomplish. The temptation has always been to be as complete as possible; adding ever more details to define the use case down to a functional (code-wise) level. While it is useful to have a comprehensive understanding of the requirements, the Use Case diagram is not intended to provide that level of documentation.
One thing that makes the issue worse is the syntax which I've never seen used in a working project. It isn't that the terms aren't useful, it's due to the lack of consensus over when to use either term for a given use case. The UML artifacts expect a process that is more focused on the business language instead of the implementation language - and by that I do not mean a computer language. The tendency by some has been to approach the diagrams with a legalistic bent and worry about things like when to use for related use cases or how to express error-handling as exceptions to a defined list of process tasks.
If you have ever tried to work through the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) example, you'll know what I mean. In the solar system of UML learning, the ATM example is a black hole that will suck you into the details. Avoid using it to understand UML or the Object Oriented Analysis and Design. It has many of the problems, typical of real-world domains, that distract from getting an overall understanding even though it would make for a good advanced study.
Yes, code will eventually be produced from the UML artifacts, but that does not mean they have to be debated like a treaty in the Senate.
The OMG UML spec says:
Use cases are a means for specifying required usages of a system. Typically, they are used to capture the requirements of a system, that is, what a system is supposed to do. The key concepts associated with use cases are actors, use cases, and the subject. The subject is the system under consideration to which the use cases apply. The users and any other systems
that may interact with the subject are represented as actors. Actors always model entities that are outside the system.
The required behavior of the subject is specified by one or more use cases, which are defined according to the needs of actors. Strictly speaking, the term “use case” refers to a use case type. An instance of a use case refers to an occurrence of the
emergent behavior that conforms to the corresponding use case type. Such instances are often described by interaction specifications.
An actor specifies a role played by a user or any other system that interacts with the subject. (The term “role” is used
informally here and does not necessarily imply the technical definition of that term found elsewhere in this specification.)
Now most people would agree that business and user level interactions are the sweet spot, but there is no limitation. Think about the actors/roles being outside of the main system/systems you are focusing on. But in one view a system could be an actor, but in another the implementer of other use cases.