Develop Reference

Close task before run again

I working on real-time search. At this moment on property setter which is bounded to edit text, I call a method which calls API and then fills the list with the result it looks like this:
private string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
SetProperty(ref searchPhrase, value);
RunOnMainThread(SearchResult.Clear);
isAllFriends = false;
currentPage = 0;
RunInAsync(LoadData);
}
}
private async Task LoadData()
{
var response = await connectionRepository.GetConnections(currentPage,
pageSize, searchPhrase);
foreach (UserConnection uc in response)
{
if (uc.Type != UserConnection.TypeEnum.Awaiting)
{
RunOnMainThread(() =>
SearchResult.Add(new ConnectionUser(uc)));
}
}
}
But this way is totally useless because of it totally mashup list of a result if a text is entering quickly. So to prevent this I want to run this method async in a property but if a property is changed again I want to kill the previous Task and star it again. How can I achieve this?

Some informations from this thread:
create a CancellationTokenSource
var ctc = new CancellationTokenSource();
create a method doing the async work
private static Task ExecuteLongCancellableMethod(CancellationToken token)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// more code here
// check again if this task is canceled
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// more code
}
}
It is important to have this checks for cancel in the code.
Execute the function:
var cancellable = ExecuteLongCancellableMethod(ctc.Token);
To stop the long running execution use
ctc.Cancel();
For further details please consult the linked thread.

This question can be answered in many different ways. However IMO I would look at creating a class that
Delays itself automatically for X (ms) before performing the seach
Has the ability to be cancelled at any time as the search request changes.
Realistically this will change your code design, and should encapsulate the logic for both 1 & 2 in a separate class.
My initial thoughts are (and none of this is tested and mostly pseudo code).
class ConnectionSearch
{
public ConnectionSearch(string phrase, Action<object> addAction)
{
_searchPhrase = phrase;
_addAction = addAction;
_cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
}
readonly string _searchPhrase = null;
readonly Action<object> _addAction;
readonly CancellationTokenSource _cancelSource;
public void Cancel()
{
_cancelSource?.Cancel();
}
public async void PerformSearch()
{
await Task.Delay(300); //await 300ms between keystrokes
if (_cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
//continue your code keep checking for
//loop your dataset
//call _addAction?.Invoke(uc);
}
}
This is basic, really just encapsulates the logic for both points 1 & 2, you will need to adapt the code to do the search.
Next you could change your property to cancel a previous running instance, and then start another instance immediatly after something like below.
ConnectionSearch connectionSearch;
string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
//do your setter work
if(connectionSearch != null)
{
connectionSearch.Cancel();
}
connectionSearch = new ConnectionSearch(value, addConnectionUser);
connectionSearch.PerformSearch();
}
}
void addConnectionUser(object uc)
{
//pperform your add logic..
}
The code is pretty straight forward, however you will see in the setter is simply cancelling an existing request and then creating a new request. You could put some disposal cleanup logic in place but this should get you started.

You can implement some sort of debouncer which will encapsulate the logics of task result debouncing, i.e. it will assure if you run many tasks, then only the latest task result will be used:
public class TaskDebouncer<TResult>
{
public delegate void TaskDebouncerHandler(TResult result, object sender);
public event TaskDebouncerHandler OnCompleted;
public event TaskDebouncerHandler OnDebounced;
private Task _lastTask;
private object _lock = new object();
public void Run(Task<TResult> task)
{
lock (_lock)
{
_lastTask = task;
}
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
if (t.IsFaulted)
throw t.Exception;
lock (_lock)
{
if (_lastTask == task)
{
OnCompleted?.Invoke(t.Result, this);
}
else
{
OnDebounced?.Invoke(t.Result, this);
}
}
});
}
public async Task WaitLast()
{
await _lastTask;
}
}
Then, you can just do:
private readonly TaskDebouncer<Connections[]> _connectionsDebouncer = new TaskDebouncer<Connections[]>();
public ClassName()
{
_connectionsDebouncer.OnCompleted += OnConnectionUpdate;
}
public void OnConnectionUpdate(Connections[] connections, object sender)
{
RunOnMainThread(SearchResult.Clear);
isAllFriends = false;
currentPage = 0;
foreach (var conn in connections)
RunOnMainThread(() => SearchResult.Add(new ConnectionUser(conn)));
}
private string searchPhrase;
public string SearchPhrase
{
get => searchPhrase;
set
{
SetProperty(ref searchPhrase, value);
_connectionsDebouncer.Add(RunInAsync(LoadData));
}
}
private async Task<Connection[]> LoadData()
{
return await connectionRepository
.GetConnections(currentPage, pageSize, searchPhrase)
.Where(conn => conn.Type != UserConnection.TypeEnum.Awaiting)
.ToArray();
}
It is not pretty clear what RunInAsync and RunOnMainThread methods are.
I guess, you don't actually need them.

C# await seems not waiting

I've created class for reusing thread. This class has one public method for queueing jobs.
public AwaitableJob<T> PrepareJob(Func<T> job)
{
lock (locker)
{
var aj = new AwaitableJob<T>(job);
taskQueue.Enqueue(aj);
System.Threading.Monitor.PulseAll(locker);
return aj;
}
}
AwaitableJob is custom class which should provide awaiter object.
public class AwaitableJob<T> : INotifyCompletion where T : class
{
public Func<T> Job { get; private set; }
public bool IsCompleted { get; private set; } = false;
private object result;
public AwaitableJob(Func<T> job)
{
this.Job = job;
}
public AwaitableJob<T> GetAwaiter()
{
return this;
}
public void Invoke()
{
result = Job.Invoke();
IsCompleted = true;
}
public object GetResult()
{
return result;
}
public void OnCompleted(Action continuation)
{
continuation.Invoke();
}
}
And I tried to use it this way
public async void Connect()
{
var atm = await Worker.PrepareJob(ConnectHelper) as PresentModel;
if (atm == null) return;
var vm = new SwitchingViewModel(atm);
vm.NavigateTo();
}
But instead of waiting it always continues in execution so atm variable is always null. When I added breakpoints into AwaitableJob it showed that GetResult is called before IsCompleted was setted to true. Anyone knows where could be problem? Thanks for your help.

The problem is here:
public void OnCompleted(Action continuation)
{
continuation.Invoke();
}
The point of OnCompleted is to register a callback for when it has completed, but you are invoking the continuation now. The only time you should do that is for the thread-race condition where somebody checks IsCompleted and gets false, but the status changes between that and registering the callback. Other than that, what you should be doing is storing the callback, and invoking it from the code that actually changes the status to completed (which looks like your Invoke method), again remembering to consider thread-safety around the switchover.
Frankly, if this sounds complex: use TaskCompletionSource<T>

Pass delegate together with parameter to a function

I want enqueue a list of tasks and then perform on certain event. Code:
internal class MyClass
{
private Queue<Task> m_taskQueue;
protected MyClass()
{
m_taskQueue = new Queue<Task>();
}
public delegate bool Task(object[] args);
public void EnqueueTask(Task task)
{
m_taskQueue.Enqueue(task);
}
public virtual bool Save()
{
// save by processing work queue
while (m_taskQueue.Count > 0)
{
var task = m_taskQueue.Dequeue();
var workItemResult = task.Invoke();
if (!workItemResult)
{
// give up on a failure
m_taskQueue.Clear();
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}
Each delegate task may have their own list of parameters: Task(object[] args). My question is how to pass the parameter to each task for the task queue?

Okay, now we have a bit more information, it sounds like your EnqueueTask method should actually look like this:
public void EnqueueTask(Task task, object[] values)
Right?
For starters I would avoid using the name Task, which is already part of the core of .NET 4 and will become very prominent in .NET 5. As Joshua said, you've basically got a Func<object[], bool>.
Next, you could keep two lists - one for the delegates and one for the values, but it's easier just to keep a Queue<Func<bool>> like this:
private readonly Queue<Func<bool>> taskQueue = new Queue<Func<bool>>();
public void EnqueueTask(Task task, object[] values)
{
taskQueue.Enqueue(() => task(values));
}
Then the rest of your code will actually work "as is". The lambda expression there will capture values and task, so when you invoke the Func<bool>, it will supply those values to the original delegate.

Provided understanding your question correctly you just pass the information like a normal call. Have you considered using Func? You can just pass arguments to the Task.Invoke i.e. Task.Invoke([arguments here as a *single* object array]).
object[] arguments = null; // assign arguments to something
var workItemResult = task.Invoke(arguments);
Below is an example with the Func type.
internal class MyClass
{
private Queue<Func<object[], bool>> m_taskQueue;
protected MyClass()
{
m_taskQueue = new Queue<Func<object[], bool>>();
}
public void EnqueueTask(Func<object[], bool> task)
{
m_taskQueue.Enqueue(task);
}
public virtual bool Save()
{
object[] arguments = null; // assign arguments to something
// save by processing work queue
while (m_taskQueue.Count > 0)
{
var task = m_taskQueue.Dequeue();
var workItemResult = task(arguments);
if (!workItemResult)
{
// give up on a failure
m_taskQueue.Clear();
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}

How can I cancel an asynchronous delegate in C# 3.5?

I have searched google up and down but I can not find nearly any proper information about that topic.
What I wanna do is this:
User types a single search-string in a textbox.
I wait 0.5 s then I start to BeginInvoke my delegate pointing to a search method.
If the user types again a char I want to cancel the Search and begin a new search with the new string typed.
The UI-Thread must not be blocked!
How can I do that using C# 3.5 ?
UPDATE:
View:
private void OnTextChanged(...)
{
if (SearchFormatEvent != null)
{
ICollection<object> collection = SearchFormatEvent("MySearchString");
// Do stuff on the returned collection
}
}
SearchProvider:
// This is the delegate invoked for the async search taking the searchstring typed by the user
public delegate ICollection<object> SearchInputTextStrategy<T>(string param);
public class SearchProvider : ISearchProvider
{
private ITextView _view;
private SearchInputTextStrategy<object> searchInputDelegate;
public SearchProvider(ITextView view)
{
_view = view;
_view.SearchFormatEvent += new ConstructSearchFormatDelegate(CostructSearchFormat);
}
private string SearchFormat(string param)
{
// compute string
return string.Empty; //...
}
public ICollection<object> CostructSearchFormat(string param)
{
var searchfilter = SearchFormat(param);
IAsyncResult pendingOperation = searchInputDelegate.BeginInvoke("searchfilter",null,null);
// How can I cancel the Async delegate ?
ICollection<object> result = searchInputDelegate.EndInvoke(pendingOperation);
return result;
}
}

Switch to BackGroudWorker , is supports all you need ( NoUI Blocking , Cancellation ect, Progress Reporting..)

Have a look at CancellationTokenSource and CancellationToken, it is a thread safe method to signal cancellation.
You use the CancellationTokenSource to signal Cancellation to all owners of CancellationToken (the search thread in your case)

Async result handle to return to callers

I have a method that queues some work to be executed asynchronously. I'd like to return some sort of handle to the caller that can be polled, waited on, or used to fetch the return value from the operation, but I can't find a class or interface that's suitable for the task.
BackgroundWorker comes close, but it's geared to the case where the worker has its own dedicated thread, which isn't true in my case. IAsyncResult looks promising, but the provided AsyncResult implementation is also unusable for me. Should I implement IAsyncResult myself?
Clarification:
I have a class that conceptually looks like this:
class AsyncScheduler
{
private List<object> _workList = new List<object>();
private bool _finished = false;
public SomeHandle QueueAsyncWork(object workObject)
{
// simplified for the sake of example
_workList.Add(workObject);
return SomeHandle;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
foreach (object workObject in _workList)
{
if (!workObject.IsFinished)
{
workObject.DoSomeWork();
}
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
The QueueAsyncWork function pushes a work item onto the polling list for a dedicated work thread, of which there will only over be one. My problem is not with writing the QueueAsyncWork function--that's fine. My question is, what do I return to the caller? What should SomeHandle be?
The existing .Net classes for this are geared towards the situation where the asynchronous operation can be encapsulated in a single method call that returns. That's not the case here--all of the work objects do their work on the same thread, and a complete work operation might span multiple calls to workObject.DoSomeWork(). In this case, what's a reasonable approach for offering the caller some handle for progress notification, completion, and getting the final outcome of the operation?

Yes, implement IAsyncResult (or rather, an extended version of it, to provide for progress reporting).
public class WorkObjectHandle : IAsyncResult, IDisposable
{
private int _percentComplete;
private ManualResetEvent _waitHandle;
public int PercentComplete {
get {return _percentComplete;}
set
{
if (value < 0 || value > 100) throw new InvalidArgumentException("Percent complete should be between 0 and 100");
if (_percentComplete = 100) throw new InvalidOperationException("Already complete");
if (value == 100 && Complete != null) Complete(this, new CompleteArgs(WorkObject));
_percentComplete = value;
}
public IWorkObject WorkObject {get; private set;}
public object AsyncState {get {return WorkObject;}}
public bool IsCompleted {get {return _percentComplete == 100;}}
public event EventHandler<CompleteArgs> Complete; // CompleteArgs in a usual pattern
// you may also want to have Progress event
public bool CompletedSynchronously {get {return false;}}
public WaitHandle
{
get
{
// initialize it lazily
if (_waitHandle == null)
{
ManualResetEvent newWaitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _waitHandle, newWaitHandle, null) != null)
newWaitHandle.Dispose();
}
return _waitHandle;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_waitHandle != null)
_waitHandle.Dispose();
// dispose _workObject too, if needed
}
public WorkObjectHandle(IWorkObject workObject)
{
WorkObject = workObject;
_percentComplete = 0;
}
}
public class AsyncScheduler
{
private Queue<WorkObjectHandle> _workQueue = new Queue<WorkObjectHandle>();
private bool _finished = false;
public WorkObjectHandle QueueAsyncWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
var handle = new WorkObjectHandle(workObject);
lock(_workQueue)
{
_workQueue.Enqueue(handle);
}
return handle;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
WorkObjectHandle handle;
lock(_workQueue)
{
if (_workQueue.Count == 0) break;
handle = _workQueue.Dequeue();
}
try
{
var workObject = handle.WorkObject;
// do whatever you want with workObject, set handle.PercentCompleted, etc.
}
finally
{
handle.Dispose();
}
}
}
}

If I understand correctly you have a collection of work objects (IWorkObject) that each complete a task via multiple calls to a DoSomeWork method. When an IWorkObject object has finished its work you'd like to respond to that somehow and during the process you'd like to respond to any reported progress?
In that case I'd suggest you take a slightly different approach. You could take a look at the Parallel Extension framework (blog). Using the framework, you could write something like this:
public void QueueWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
Task.TaskFactory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (!workObject.Finished)
{
int progress = workObject.DoSomeWork();
DoSomethingWithReportedProgress(workObject, progress);
}
WorkObjectIsFinished(workObject);
});
}
Some things to note:
QueueWork now returns void. The reason for this is that the actions that occur when progress is reported or when the task completes have become part of the thread that executes the work. You could of course return the Task that the factory creates and return that from the method (to enable polling for example).
The progress-reporting and finish-handling are now part of the thread because you should always avoid polling when possible. Polling is more expensive because usually you either poll too frequently (too early) or not often enough (too late). There is no reason you can't report on the progress and finishing of the task from within the thread that is running the task.
The above could also be implemented using the (lower level) ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem method.
Using QueueUserWorkItem:
public void QueueWork(IWorkObject workObject)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(() =>
{
while (!workObject.Finished)
{
int progress = workObject.DoSomeWork();
DoSomethingWithReportedProgress(workObject, progress);
}
WorkObjectIsFinished(workObject);
});
}

The WorkObject class can contain the properties that need to be tracked.
public class WorkObject
{
public PercentComplete { get; private set; }
public IsFinished { get; private set; }
public void DoSomeWork()
{
// work done here
this.PercentComplete = 50;
// some more work done here
this.PercentComplete = 100;
this.IsFinished = true;
}
}
Then in your example:
Change the collection from a List to a Dictionary that can hold Guid values (or any other means of uniquely identifying the value).
Expose the correct WorkObject's properties by having the caller pass the Guid that it received from QueueAsyncWork.
I'm assuming that you'll start WorkThread asynchronously (albeit, the only asynchronous thread); plus, you'll have to make retrieving the dictionary values and WorkObject properties thread-safe.
private Dictionary<Guid, WorkObject> _workList =
new Dictionary<Guid, WorkObject>();
private bool _finished = false;
public Guid QueueAsyncWork(WorkObject workObject)
{
Guid guid = Guid.NewGuid();
// simplified for the sake of example
_workList.Add(guid, workObject);
return guid;
}
private void WorkThread()
{
// simplified for the sake of example
while (!_finished)
{
foreach (WorkObject workObject in _workList)
{
if (!workObject.IsFinished)
{
workObject.DoSomeWork();
}
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
// an example of getting the WorkObject's property
public int GetPercentComplete(Guid guid)
{
WorkObject workObject = null;
if (!_workList.TryGetValue(guid, out workObject)
throw new Exception("Unable to find Guid");
return workObject.PercentComplete;
}

The simplest way to do this is described here. Suppose you have a method string DoSomeWork(int). You then create a delegate of the correct type, for example:
Func<int, string> myDelegate = DoSomeWork;
Then you call the BeginInvoke method on the delegate:
int parameter = 10;
myDelegate.BeginInvoke(parameter, Callback, null);
The Callback delegate will be called once your asynchronous call has completed. You can define this method as follows:
void Callback(IAsyncResult result)
{
var asyncResult = (AsyncResult) result;
var #delegate = (Func<int, string>) asyncResult.AsyncDelegate;
string methodReturnValue = #delegate.EndInvoke(result);
}
Using the described scenario, you can also poll for results or wait on them. Take a look at the url I provided for more info.
Regards,
Ronald

If you don't want to use async callbacks, you can use an explicit WaitHandle, such as a ManualResetEvent:
public abstract class WorkObject : IDispose
{
ManualResetEvent _waitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void DoSomeWork()
{
try
{
this.DoSomeWorkOverride();
}
finally
{
_waitHandle.Set();
}
}
protected abstract DoSomeWorkOverride();
public void WaitForCompletion()
{
_waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_waitHandle.Dispose();
}
}
And in your code you could say
using (var workObject = new SomeConcreteWorkObject())
{
asyncScheduler.QueueAsyncWork(workObject);
workObject.WaitForCompletion();
}
Don't forget to call Dispose on your workObject though.
You can always use alternate implementations which create a wrapper like this for every work object, and who call _waitHandle.Dispose() in WaitForCompletion(), you can lazily instantiate the wait handle (careful: race conditions ahead), etc. (That's pretty much what BeginInvoke does for delegates.)