0

My teacher designed UML about one database to manage school. It has 3 actors, many use case :

Student : See their information, see grade.
Teacher : Input grade of student.
Office : Manage information of student, order grade of student.

And all actor must login (use case) to do. He do this :

See their information ---include--> login
See grade ---include--> login
Input grade of student ---include--> login
Manage information of student ---include--> login
Order grade of student ---include--> login

And I think that this is wrong. Because, follow theory, inclusion is used to show how a use case breaks into smaller steps. So :

See their information <--include--- login
....
....
Order grade of student <---include--- login

You think what is right, please ?

observer
  • 2,925
  • 1
  • 19
  • 38
pato24193
  • 3
  • 2

2 Answers2

1

Your arrow should point in the direction from the larger use case to the smaller (The main use case to the case that is part of the main one)

In this case, when a Student wants to see their grade or their information etc, they must log in - So, these use cases 'include' the login use case, so your teacher is correct.

Your version means that when an actor logs in, they must view their grades and see their information etc which doesn't make any sense.

Sinkingpoint
  • 7,449
  • 2
  • 29
  • 45
0

He is right. However, it is a bad example, because "login" is too fine-grained to be a use case of it's own (and likely to be required by pretty mich any other use case). You find many threads regarding include / extend on stackoverflow, tagged with "use case".

observer
  • 2,925
  • 1
  • 19
  • 38