I'm not sure how to code this logic. I want to be able to listen for new messages outside of the code scope that receives the websocket messages. I have to be able to ultimately make an async function called WaitForMessage(string msg), so this can't really be achieved with events as far as I know. I use .NET Core. I thought the logic should look kind of like this:
var messages = new();
foo();
bar();
async task foo(){
while(messages.message != "foobar")
await messages.WaitForNewMessage();
}
async Task bar(){
Task.delay(5000);
messages.NewMessage("foobar");
}
Any alternative methods or ways of achieving my goal is much appreciated.
I tried using events, but I can't wait for an event to be raised, I can only subscribe a function to the event, so that doesn't seem like good practice / even possible.
If I am understanding you correctly, this code will be sufficient. I have not tested it as I don't know how your websocket message receiving code looks like.
public async Task WaitForMessage(string message)
{
while (true)
{
var read = await _reader.ReadToEndAsync(); //whatver your code is for async receiving a chunk of text
if (read == message)
{
break;
}
}
}
and then the calling code
async Task Foo()
{
while (true)
{
await messages.WaitForMessage("foobar");
}
}
Related
Sometimes I need to start an async job which works very slow. I don't care if that job success and I need to continue working on my current thread.
Like sometimes I need to send an Email or SMS which works very slow. I need to respond to the web client as soon as possible so I don't want to await it.
I have googled this question and some articles suggest me to write like this:
// This method has to be async
public async Task<Response> SomeHTTPAction()
{
// Some logic...
// ...
// Send an Email but don't care if it successfully sent.
Task.Run(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
return MyRespond();
}
Or like this:
// This method has to be async
public async Task<Response> SomeHTTPAction()
{
// Some logic...
// ...
// Send an Email but don't care if it successfully sent.
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
return MyRespond();
}
There will be a warning says: before the call is completed. Consider applying the 'await' operator to the result of the call.
So what if I really awaited it? What is the best practice in C# to 'fire and forget', just call an async method without waiting for its completion?
A standalone discard is the best way to avoid this warning.
_ = Task.Run(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
Discards are dummy variables and can be used to ignore the Task object returned by an asynchronous operation.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/discards#a-standalone-discard
If you truly just want to fire and forget. Simply don't call use await.
// It is a good idea to add CancellationTokens
var asyncProcedure = SomeHTTPAction(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
// Or If not simply do:
var asyncProcedure = SomeHTTPAction().ConfigureAwait(false);
If you want to use the result output later its gets trickier. But if it is truly fire and forget the above should work
A Cancellation token allows interrupts and canceling procedures. If you are using Cancellation token you will need to use it everywhere from the retrieval straight through to the calling method (Turtles all the way down).
I used ConfigureAwait(false) to prevent deadlocks. Here for more information
EDIT
See the second answer that uses 'Task.Factory.StartNew' I gave this answer some time ago. At the time I didn't realise that the way I did it at the time doesn't ensure completion.
If you need to use async in your function you can also use a discard variable and don't use await. This is also usefull if you have multiple async function calls but you don't need to wait for all of them.
public async function(){
var tmp = await asyncfunction();
...
_ = _httpClient.PutAsync(url, content);
...
}
As Amadan told in the comment that, you need to remove async from your function. then it will stop giving you the warning.
// This method has to be async
public Response SomeHTTPAction()
{
// Some logic...
// ...
// Send an Email but don't care if it successfully sent.
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
return MyRespond();
}
and Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync()); will indeed work on a new thread.
It all depends on what your Async method accepts. Normally it will accept a "special" class that also holds an event. You can subscribe your callback method to that event and pass it along with the method. When it's finished, your callback method will be called.
An example of this (for sockets) would be:
public void CreateSocket()
{
Socket s = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
SocketAsyncEventArgs sockAsync = new SocketAsyncEventArgs();
sockAsync.Completed += SockAsync_Completed;
s.ConnectAsync(sockAsync);
}
private void SockAsync_Completed(object sender, SocketAsyncEventArgs e)
{
//Do stuff with your callback object.
}
It all depends on what the method you are trying to call can accept. I would look at the documentation for more help on that specifically.
I am curious why this hasn't been suggested.
new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.CurrentThread.IsBackground = true;
//what ever code here...e.g.
DoSomething();
UpdateSomething();
}).Start();
It just fires off a separate thread.
I started to look into Task, async/await concepts is c# and I'm having big problems understanding it, well at least i don't know how to implement it. I started rewriting an older test program i had written before, but now instead of threading i want to use these new concepts. Basically the layout is as it follows:
I have a simple class where i download the HTML content of a web page.
I process that in another class where i basically just parse the page to my model. Later on i want to display that to my UI.
The problem is that my program is not responsive, it blocks the UI while I'm processing the info.
I started learning this 2 days ago, i have read a lot of stuff online, including MSDN and some blogs but yet I'm unable to figure it out. Maybe someone can provide a look as well
HtmlDOwnloadCOde:
public async Task<string> GetMangaDescriptionPage(string detailUrl)
{
WebClient client = new WebClient();
Stream data = await client.OpenReadTaskAsync(detailUrl);
StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(data);
string s = reader.ReadToEnd();
data.Dispose();
reader.Dispose();
data.Close();
reader.Close();
return s;
}
My parse class code:
public async Task<MangaDetailsModel> ParseMangaDescriptionPage()
{
ParseOneManga pom = new ParseOneManga();
string t1 = await pom.GetMangaDescriptionPage(selectedManga.url);
HtmlDocument htmlDoc = new HtmlDocument();
htmlDoc.LoadHtml(t1);
var divs = htmlDoc.DocumentNode.Descendants("div").Where(x => x.Attributes.Contains("id") &&
x.Attributes["id"].Value.Contains("title")).ToArray();
mangaDetails.mangaName = divs[0].Element("h1").InnerText;
mangaDetails.description = divs[0].Descendants("p").Single().InnerText ?? "DSA";
var tds = divs[0].Descendants("td");
int info = 0;
var chapters = htmlDoc.DocumentNode.Descendants("div").Where(x => x.Attributes.Contains("id") &&
x.Attributes["id"].Value.Contains("chapters")).ToArray();
var chapterUi = chapters[0].Descendants("ul").Where(x => x.Attributes.Contains("class") &&
x.Attributes["class"].Value.Contains("chlist"));
foreach (var li in chapterUi)
{
var liChapter = li.Descendants("li");
foreach (var h3tag in liChapter)
{
var chapterH3 = h3tag.Descendants("a").ToArray();
SingleManagFox chapterData = new SingleManagFox();
chapterData.name = chapterH3[1].InnerHtml;
chapterData.url = chapterH3[1].GetAttributeValue("href", "0");
mangaDetails.chapters.Add(chapterData);
}
};
return mangaDetails;
}
UI code:
private async void mainBtn_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
if (mangaList.SelectedItem != null)
{
test12((SingleManagFox)mangaList.SelectedItem);
}
}
private async void test12(SingleManagFox selectedManga)
{
selectedManga = (SingleManagFox)mangaList.SelectedItem;
MangaDetails mangaDetails = new MangaDetails(selectedManga);
MangaDetailsModel mdm = await mangaDetails.ParseMangaDescriptionPage();
txtMangaArtist.Text = mdm.artisName;
txtMangaAuthor.Text = mdm.authorName;
chapterList.ItemsSource = mdm.chapters;
}
Sorry if its trivial but i cannot figure it out myself.
When going async you need to try to go async all the way and avoid mixing blocking calls with async calls.
You are using async void in the event handler with no await.
Try to avoid async void unless it is an event handler. test12 should be updated to return Task and awaited in the event handler mainBtn_Click.
private async void mainBtn_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) {
if (mangaList.SelectedItem != null) {
await test12((SingleManagFox)mangaList.SelectedItem);
}
}
private async Task test12(SingleManagFox selectedManga) {
selectedManga = (SingleManagFox)mangaList.SelectedItem;
MangaDetails mangaDetails = new MangaDetails(selectedManga);
MangaDetailsModel mdm = await mangaDetails.ParseMangaDescriptionPage();
txtMangaArtist.Text = mdm.artisName;
txtMangaAuthor.Text = mdm.authorName;
chapterList.ItemsSource = mdm.chapters;
}
Also consider updating the web call to use HttpClient if available.
class ParseOneManga {
public async Task<string> GetMangaDescriptionPageAsync(string detailUrl) {
using (var client = new HttpClient()) {
string s = await client.GetStringAsync(detailUrl);
return s;
}
}
}
Reference: - Async/Await - Best Practices in Asynchronous Programming
Quite often people think that async-await means that multiple threads are processing your code at the same time. This is not the case, unless you explicitly start a different thread.
A good metaphore that helped me a lot explaining async-await is the restauran metaphor used in this interview with Eric Lippert. Search somewhere in the middle for async-await.
Eric Lipperts compares async-await processing with a cook who has to wait for his water to boil. Instead of waiting, he looks around if he can do other things instead. When finished doing the other thing, he comes back to see if the water is boiling and starts processing the boiling water.
The same is with your process. There is only one thread busy (at a time). This thread keeps processing until he has to await for something. This something is usually a fairly long process that is processed without using your CPU core, like writing a file to disk, loading a web page, or querying information from an external database.
Your thread can only do one thing at a time. So while it is busy calculating something, if can't react on operator input and your UI freezes, until the calculations are done. Async await will only help if there are a lot of times your thread would be waiting for other processes to complete
If you call an async function, you are certain that somewhere in that function is an await. In fact, if you declare your function async, and your forget to await in it, your compiler will warn you.
When your call meets the await in the function, your thread goes up its call stack to see if it can do other things. If you are not awaiting, you can continue processing, until you have to await. The thread goes up its call stack again to see if one of the callers is not awaiting etc.
async Task ReadDataAsync()
{
// do some preparations
using (TextReader textReader = ...)
{
var myReadTask = textReader.ReadToEndAsync();
// while the textReader is waiting for the information to be available
// you can do other things
ProcessSomething();
// after a while you really need the results from the read data,
// so you await for it.
string text = await MyReadTask;
// after the await, the results from ReatToEnd are available
Process(text);
...
There are some rules to follow:
an async function should return Task instead of void and Task<TResult> instead of TResult
There is one exception: the async event handler returns void instead of Task.
Inside your async function you should await somehow. If you don't await, it is useless to declare your function async
The result of await Task is void, and the result of await Task<TResult> is TResult
If you call an async function, see if you can do some processing instead of waiting for the results of the call
Note that even if you call several async functions before awaiting for them, does not mean that several threads are running these functions synchronously. The statement after your first call to the async function is processed after the called function starts awaiting.
async Task DoSomethingAsync()
{
var task1 = ReadAsync(...);
// no await, so next statement processes as soon as ReadAsync starts awaiting
DoSomeThingElse();
var task2 = QueryAsync(...);
// again no await
// now I need results from bothtask1, or from task2:
await Task.WhenAll(new Task[] {task1, task2});
var result1 = Task1.Result;
var result2 = Task2.Result;
Process(result1, result2);
...
Usually all your async functionality is performed by the same context. In practice this means that you can program as if your program is single threaded. This makes the look of your program much easier.
Another article that helped me a lot understanding async-await is Async-Await best practices written by the ever so helpful Stephen Cleary
I am working on refactoring code that uses the Bootstrap protocol to update the firmware of several nodes in a machine. The current code looks something like this (pseudo-code):
public void StartUpdate()
{
Sokcet bootpSocket = new Socket():
StateObject bootpState = new StateObject(bootpSocket);
BOOTPReceive(bootpState);
SendMagicPacket();
while (!IsError && !IsUpdateComplete)
{
//wait for BOOTP/Update to finish before returning to caller
}
}
private void BOOTPReceive(object state)
{
bOOTPSocket.BeginReceive(PACKET_DATA, 0, PACKET_DATA.Length, 0, OnBOOTPReceive, state);
}
SendMagicPacket()
{
//create and send magic packet
// this will tell the node to respond with a BOOTPPacket
}
private void OnBOOTPReceive(IAsyncResult result)
{
StateObject state = (StateObject) result.AsyncState;
Socket handler = state.workSocket;
int bytesRcvd = handler.EndReceive(result);
packet = PACKET_DATA;
if(isValidBOOTP(packet))
{
SendBOOTPResponse();
}
else{
BOOTPReceive(); //keep listening for valid bootp response
}
}
private void SendBOOTPResponse()
{
UdpClient udpClient = new UdpClient();
udpClient.BeginSend(packetData, packetData.Length, BROADCAST_IP, (int)UdpPort.BOOTP_CLIENT_PORT, OnBOOTPSend, udpClient);
}
private void OnBOOTPSend(IAsyncResult result)
{
UdpClient udpClient = (UdpClient)result.AsyncState;
int bytesSent = udpClient.EndSend(result);
udpClient.Close();
}
What I want to do is convert this to async-await but still require that I don't return back to the caller right away. How would I go about doing this? Is this possible to do? And would this be the right thing to do since await-async propagates all the way to the top?
Pseudo-code of what I think this would look like:
public void StartUpdate()
{
bool result = await SendMagicPacket();
bool IsError = await BOOTPCommunication(); //Handles all of the BOOTP recieve/sends
//don't return to caller until BOOTPCommunication is completed. How do i do this?
}
You need to wait for the two tasks try the following:
public async Task StartUpdate()
{
var resultTask = SendMagicPacket();
var isErrorTask = BOOTPCommunication(); //Handles all of the BOOTP recieve/sends
await Task.WhenAll(new[]{resultTask, isErrorTask});
//don't return to caller until BOOTPCommunication is completed. How do i do this?
}
//wait for BOOTP/Update to finish before returning to caller
You don't need any async IO at all because you want to wait until all operations are done. I assume you have copied some sample code. Most sample code uses async socket APIs.
Switch everything over to synchronous socket APIs and you're done.
If you want to keep this async for some reason you can indeed switch to await and untangle this code. The pseudo-code you posted looks like a good goal. It forces the surrounding method to be async Task, though.
You can deal with that by making all callers recursively async as well. If you don't need to conserve threads you could block on that task and have a mostly synchronous call chain. At that point you lose all async benefits, though.
Radin was on the right track, but I think what you want is something like this:
You need to wait for the two tasks try the following:
public async Task StartUpdate()
{
var resultTask = SendMagicPacket();
var isErrorTask = BOOTPCommunication(); //Handles all of the BOOTP recieve/sends
Task.WhenAll(new[]{resultTask, isErrorTask}).Wait(); //Wait() will block so that the method doesn't return to the caller until both of the asynchronous tasks complete.
}
What that allows is SendMagicPacket and BOOTPCommunication to both fire simultaneously, but to wait for BOTH to complete. Using that pattern you can fire of N events simultaneously, while using Wait() to wait for all to finish so that the method itself returns synchronously.
This is for an iOS app written in Xamarin. All my application code runs in the main thread (i.e. the UI thread).
The UI code does something as follows:
public async void ButtonClicked()
{
StartSpinner();
var data = await UpdateData();
StopSpinner();
UpdateScreen(data);
}
The UpdateData function does something as follows:
public Task<Data> UpdateData()
{
var data = await FetchFromServer();
TriggerCacheUpdate();
return data;
}
TriggerCacheUpdate ends up calling the following function defined below
public Task RefreshCache()
{
var data = await FetchMoreDataFromServer();
UpdateInternalDataStructures();
}
My question is how should TriggerCacheUpdate be written? The requirements are:
Can't be async, I don't want UpdateData and consequently
ButtonClicked to wait for RefreshCache to complete before
continuing.
UpdateInternalDataStructures needs to execute on the main (UI) thread, i.e. the thread that all the other code shown above executes on.
Here are a few alternatives I came up with:
public void TriggerCacheUpdate()
{
RefreshCache();
}
The above works but generates a compiler warning. Moreover exception handling from RefreshCache doesn't work.
public void TriggerCacheUpdate()
{
Task.Run(async() =>
{
await RefreshCache();
});
}
The above violates requirement 2 as UpdateInternalDataStructures is not executed on the same thread as everything else.
A possible alternative that I believe works is:
private event EventHandler Done;
public void TriggerCacheUpdate()
{
this.task = RefreshCache();
Done += async(sender, e) => await this.task;
}
Task RefreshCache() {
var data = await FetchMoreDataFromServer();
UpdateInternalDataStructures();
if (Done != null) {
Done(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
Does the above work? I haven't ran into any problems thus far with my limited testing. Is there a better way to write TriggerCacheUpdate?
It's hard to say without being able to test it but it looks like your trigger cache update method is fine, it's your RefreshCache that needs to change. Inside of RefreshCache you are not waiting in the UI thread for the result of "data" to return so set the ConfigureAwait to false.
public async Task RefreshCache()
{
var data = await FetchMoreDataFromServer().ConfigureAwait(false);
UpdateInternalDataStructures();
}
Your event handler is async. That means, that even if you await for a Task to complete, that your UI remains responsive. So even if you would await for the TriggerCacheUpdate to return, your UI would remain responsive.
However, if you are really certain that you are not interested in the result of TriggerCachUpdate, then you could start a Task without waiting for it:
public Task<Data> UpdateData()
{
var data = await FetchFromServer();
Task.Run( () => TriggerCacheUpdate());
return data;
}
Note: careful: you don't know when TriggerCachUpdate is finished, not even if it ended successfully or threw an exception. Also: check what happens if you start a new TriggerCacheUpdate task while the previous one is not finished yet.
For those who want to use Task.Factory.StartNew, see the discussion about it in MSDN:
Task.Run vs Task.Factory.StartNew
I have some code that creates a task that does some slow work like this:
public static Task wait1()
{
return new Task(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
In the real implementation, the Thread.Sleep will actually be a web service call. I would like to change the body of the method can use await (so it does not consume a thread during the network access/sleep). My first attempt (based on shotgun-debugging the compile errors) was this:
public static Task wait2()
{
return new Task(async () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
However; this task doesn't seem to behave the same as the first one, because when I call .Wait() on it; it returns immediately.
Below is a full sample (console app) showing the differences (the app will end immediately when the second task starts).
What do I need to do so that I can call Start and Wait on a Task which happens to have code using await inside it? The tasks are queued and executed later by an agent, so it's vital that the task is not auto-started.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var w1 = wait1();
w1.Start();
w1.Wait(); // This waits 110 seconds
var w2 = wait2();
w2.Start();
w2.Wait(); // This returns immediately
}
public static Task wait1()
{
return new Task(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
public static Task wait2()
{
return new Task(async () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
});
}
}
It seems like this isn't possible! See alexm's answer here:
Tasks returned by async methods are always hot i.e. they are created in Running state.
:-(
I've worked around this by making my agent queue Func<Task>s instead, and the overload that receives a task simply queues () => task. Then; when de-queing a task, I check if it's not running, and if so, start it:
var currentTask = currentTaskFunction();
if (currentTask.Status == TaskStatus.Created)
currentTask.Start();
It seems a little clunky to have to do this (if this simple workaround works; why the original restriction on async methods always being created hot?), but it seems to work for me :-)
You could write this as:
public static async Task Wait2()
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(10000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
}
In general, it's rarely a good idea to ever use new Task or new Task<T>. If you must launch a task using the ThreadPool instead of using the async/await language support to compose one, you should use Task.Run to start the task. This will schedule the task to run (which is important, tasks should always be "hot" by conventions).
Note that doing this will make it so you don't have to call Task.Start, as well.
To help you understand this realize that async / await essentially does not create a new thread but rather it schedules that portion of code to be ran at an available point in time.
When you create the new Task(async () => ...) you have a task that run an async method. When that inner async method hits an await the 'new Task' is considered complete because the rest of it has been scheduled. To help you understand better place some code (a lot if wanted) in the 'new Task' before the await command. It will all execute before the application terminates and once await is reached that task will believe it has completed. It then returns and exits the application.
The best way to avoid this is to not place any task or async methods inside of your task.
Remove the async keyword and the await keyword from the method and it will work as expected.
This is the same as creating a callback if you're familiar with that.
void MethodAsync(Action callback)
{
//...some code
callback?.Invoke();
}
//using this looks like this.
MethodAsync(() => { /*code to run when complete */});
//This is the same as
Task MethodAsync()
{
//... some code here
}
//using it
await MethodAsync();
/*code to run when complete */
The thing to understand is that you're creating a new task within a task basically. So the inner 'callback' is being created at the await keyword.
You're code looks like this..
void MethodAsync(Action callback)
{
//some code to run
callback?.Invoke(); // <- this is the await keyword
//more code to run.. which happens after we run whoever is
//waiting on callback
}
There's code missing obviously. If this doesn't make sense please feel free to contact me and I'll assist. async / await (meant to make things simpler) is a beast to wrap your head around at first. Afterward you get it then it'll probably be your favorite thing in c# since linq. :P
Try this:
public async static Task wait2()
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting...");
await Task.Delay(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Done!");
}
But we aware that the task is already started so you don't have to call start:
var w2 = wait2();
//w2.Start();
w2.Wait();
I think the problem with your wait2 function is that is creating 2 task, the one in new Task(...) and another in Task.Delay(). You are waiting for the first one, but you are not waiting for the inner one.