I'm writing, for educational purposes a simple use-case for tortoise SVN client. I've added a simple use-case where a Developer initiate an SVN command (i.e. svn commit
). It should <<include>>
an authentication so I added an appropriate relation.
3.1.1
is the corresponding functional request.
I've understood that a use-case diagram isn't a sequence diagram, and so and should not present a flow.
Few questions:
Thanks!
Your diagram is partially correct in the way that is shows actors, use case bubbles and the system under consideration (SUC) as boundary. But aside from that it does not show a single use case.
A use case is a single added value a SUC delivers to one of its actors. In case of your SVN, an added value would be "Check in source" (you guess the others). "Check in source" is a UC for the actor Developer. And it will not <<include>>
a UC, but directly associate it. You might connect "SVN Server" as a secondary actor, in which case the association should be stereotyped or marked in some way. You can also adopt to place secondary actors on the right side (like above). But that should be noted in modeling guidelines.
Your actors are stereotyped rather than named. You can stereotype them, but primarily you should simply name them (so omit the guillemets).
"Authenticate User" is also no UC. It's a constraint that can be attached to a UC.
I would usually not show the secondary actor(s). But if you want, you can do so. Either use some stereotyped association (like shown) an/or place them to the right (and the primary to the left) of the SUC. This should be a convention documented in the modeling guidelines.