I'm calling an async method (LoginAsync) for Authorization.
UserObject = clienAuthenticationService.LoginAsync(sUser).Result;
if (UserObject != null)
{
// Proceed for further code;
}
else
{
// Show Error message of failed authentication;
}
As this is third party service, I need output of LoginAsync before I go to next line (If block).
Current code is working fine for me and I know it waits until LoginAsync is executed.
However, I'm getting recommendation to Replace this use of 'Task.Result' with 'await'.
Question : I'm not sure if my case is relevant for await, since I need kind of Synchronous execution of async method. Can someone please confirm if recommendation given to me is irrelevant in my case or there is way to call async method synchronously with await ?
EDIT : After comments, I modified my code to add await instead of .Result. Still, unable to read response from async method. Below is new code
public static async Task<bool> CallJimService(LoginUserClass sUser)
{
var result = clientJIMServiceCall.LoginAsync(sUser).ConfigureAwait(false);
LoginUserClass loginUserDetails = await result;
if (loginUserDetails != null && loginUserDetails.UserProperties != null && loginUserDetails.UserProperties.LoggedIn)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
public static Boolean ValidateUserCredentails(string pstrUserName, string pstrPassWord)
{
LoginUserClass sUser = new LoginUserClass();
sUser.UserName = pstrUserName;
sUser.Password = pstrPassWord;
return CallJimService(sUser).Result; // Here I want to avoid using .Result.
}
Also, I don't want to change ValidateUserCredentails() to async. How Can I get through this?
The LoginAsync method is marked async, and returns a Task. This method is expected to have an asynchronous implementation. You cannot execute this method synchronously, because this method does not have a synchronous implementation. If the class you are using would provide a synchronous implementation of the Login operation, they would have to expose a Login method.
There is no guarantee that calling this method asynchronously will result in an asynchronous operation. Asynchronous methods may return synchronously if the state needs them to. For instance, AsyncLogin may return synchronously if you already have logged in. However, unless doing something extremely specific, there must be at least one execution path in the method that requires some asynchronous operation.
Recommendation given to you is not irrelevant.
You should not block on an async operation, especially using Task.Result. Asynchronous operations does not involve multithreading, and awaiting on a Task.Result may provoke a deadlock of your application, because your thread will be waiting on the Result and will not be able to respond to the async operation signaling completion.
You'd rather await the LoginAsync method asynchronously, making your method async as well.
If you are forced to call the LoginAsync method from a synchronous context, the correct implementation will depend on what exactly you are trying to achieve and what the LoginAsync method does.
If you are able to use await (that is if you are in an async method already), then use await.
UserObject = await clienAuthenticationService.LoginAsync(sUser);
Using await helps the code run synchronous(that is it preserves flow of control).
I will try to explain async usage through the following example, which has asynchronous execution flow, but synchronous control flow -
Following code runs out of sync (asynchronous that is) -
// Authenticate the user, but don't wait here while authenticating.
// Async part could be - Checking database for user details. (Network IO operation)
var UserAuthTask = LoginAsync();
// Prepare a layout or something to show when authentication fails. Don't show yet.
// Again, don't wait while preparing.
// Async part could be - Reading a render template file. (File IO operation)
var AuthFailScreen = PrepareFailScreenAsync();
// Similar to failure screen.
var AuthSuccessScreen = PrepareSuccessScreenAsync();
Now, we use await to synchronize the flow to our liking -
var UserAuthResult = await UserAuthTask;
if (UserAuthResult.Success)
{
var SuccessScreen = await AuthSuccessScreen;
SuccessScreen.Show();
}
else
{
var FailScreen = await AuthFailScreen;
FailScreen.Show();
}
You could await each of the tasks before, like var UserAuthTask = await LoginAsync();, but then you would lose the benefit of doing multiple things which could've been done while authenticating.
I am not sure about exception handling, but mix and match of async and sync code will likely cause issues.
Please correct me if I am wrong at any point. Thanks.
Related
I have a web api method that needs to call 2 asynchronous method from another party, and the result of the first async method is required in order to call the second async method. I have something like the below code, which obviously doesn't work as with the await keyword, my understanding is it will go to the next line and continue and at the same time return a Task object to the caller.
A brief explanation of what I need from this method is that, I need to get a token from a third party async method, after that, base on the token, I need to do some stuff, then use the token to call another aysnc method from the third party again.
public async Task<ResponseObj> DoSomething()
{
var token = await GetTokenAsync();
DoStuff1();
var stuff = await CreateStuff(token);
SaveStuff(stuff);
ResponseObj response = new ResponseObj(stuff);
return response;
}
I've read a few article and example online and some people say instead of await, I can use Task.Result so that the next depending call won't run until the task return the result, some people use Task.Wait and seems like it will wait until the task finishes. I've tried both and failed to achieve my expected result, which CreateStuffAsync can't start until I have the result from GetTokenAsync.
Can someone point out what I've done wrong? Let's say if the first await already return a task to the caller, then what happen when the second await is reached? Am I supposed to not have more than 1 await in the method especially when one rely on the other one?
That code is right in the sense of it is waiting for the first async call, getting the result and then continuing with the second async call.
My requirement is that I have to send a list of brokered messages to the azure service bus asynchronously. However I am not able to implement the SendBatchAsync method properly. Let me explain in detail. Here is my code:
public async Task SendBatchEnrollmentMessages()
{
while(somevalue)
{
//logic to fetch data from the SQL db through stored proc into list of brokered message i.e. messageList
if(messageList.Count() > 0)
{
await sender.SendMessagesAsync(messageList);
}
//some more logic for somevalue
}
}
where the SendMessageAsync logic is :
public async Task SendMessagesAsync(List<BrokeredMessage> brokeredMessageList)
{
var topicClient = CreateTopicClient();
await topicClient.SendBatchAsync(brokeredMessageList);
}
My issue is that when I debug the application using break point, the compiler comes till await topicClient.SendBatchAsync(brokeredMessageList); and exits the code i.e application debuggin is completed. It doesn't return back to the while condition. However instead of using SendBatchAsync if I use SendBatch, it works fine. What am I doing wrong?
Solution: The issue was with the test method which was calling the above funciton. It was of type void. It should have been of type async Task. A big thanks to Ned Stoyanov for helping me out in this.
An async method returns when after encounters an await statement and sets up the asynchronous operation being awaited. The rest of the method then continues after the await is finished.
You probably can't step through async methods like that, but try putting a breakpoint after the await and it should get hit when the asynchronous call completes.
Alternatively you may have a deadlock, see this post for some ways to avoid it.
As mentioned in our discussion the unit test needs to be async as well, return a Task and await any async calls
[TestMethod]
public async Task SendRegionsEnrollmentMessages()
{
EventManager eventMgr = new EventManager(clientUrn, programUrn, "CW");
await eventMgr.SendBatchEvents(EventType.ENROLLMENT);
}
I had a situation recently where I had an ASP.NET WebAPI controller that needed to perform two web requests to another REST service inside its action method. I had written my code to have functionality separated cleanly into separate methods, which looked a little like this example:
public class FooController : ApiController
{
public IHttpActionResult Post(string value)
{
var results = PerformWebRequests();
// Do something else here...
}
private IEnumerable<string> PerformWebRequests()
{
var result1 = PerformWebRequest("service1/api/foo");
var result = PerformWebRequest("service2/api/foo");
return new string[] { result1, result2 };
}
private string PerformWebRequest(string api)
{
using (HttpClient client = new HttpClient())
{
// Call other web API and return value here...
}
}
}
Because I was using HttpClient all web requests had to be async. I've never used async/await before so I started naively adding in the keywords. First I added the async keyword to the PerformWebRequest(string api) method but then the caller complained that the PerformWebRequests() method has to be async too in order to use await. So I made that async but now the caller of that method must be async too, and so on.
What I want to know is how far down the rabbit hole must everything be marked async to just work? Surely there would come a point where something has to run synchronously, in which case how is that handled safely? I've already read that calling Task.Result is a bad idea because it could cause deadlocks.
What I want to know is how far down the rabbit hole must everything be
marked async to just work? Surely there would come a point where
something has to run synchronously
No, there shouldn't be a point where anything runs synchronously, and that is what async is all about. The phrase "async all the way" actually means all the way up the call stack.
When you process a message asynchronously, you're letting your message loop process requests while your truly asynchronous method runs, because when you go deep down the rabit hole, There is no Thread.
For example, when you have an async button click event handler:
private async void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
await DoWorkAsync();
// Do more stuff here
}
private Task DoWorkAsync()
{
return Task.Delay(2000); // Fake work.
}
When the button is clicked, runs synchronously until hitting the first await. Once hit, the method will yield control back to the caller, which means the button event handler will free the UI thread, which will free the message loop to process more requests in the meanwhile.
The same goes for your use of HttpClient. For example, when you have:
public async Task<IHttpActionResult> Post(string value)
{
var results = await PerformWebRequests();
// Do something else here...
}
private async Task<IEnumerable<string>> PerformWebRequests()
{
var result1 = await PerformWebRequestAsync("service1/api/foo");
var result = await PerformWebRequestAsync("service2/api/foo");
return new string[] { result1, result2 };
}
private async string PerformWebRequestAsync(string api)
{
using (HttpClient client = new HttpClient())
{
await client.GetAsync(api);
}
// More work..
}
See how the async keyword went up all the way to the main method processing the POST request. That way, while the async http request is handled by the network device driver, your thread returns to the ASP.NET ThreadPool and is free to process more requests in the meanwhile.
A Console Application is a special case, since when the Main method terminates, unless you spin a new foreground thread, the app will terminate. There, you have to make sure that if the only call is an async call, you'll have to explicitly use Task.Wait or Task.Result. But in that case the default SynchronizationContext is the ThreadPoolSynchronizationContext, where there isn't a chance to cause a deadlock.
To conclude, async methods shouldn't be processed synchronously at the top of the stack, unless there is an exotic use case (such as a Console App), they should flow asynchronously all the way allowing the thread to be freed when possible.
You need to "async all the way up" to the very top of the call stack, where you reach a message loop that can process all of the asynchronous requests.
Lets say im within an ASP.NET application, WCF or web API, part of this applications job to is contact a 3rd party over the way. Id like to do this asynchronously or rather non blocking so that the thread pool doesnt get starved. However i dont want to change all my code in the service only the bit that makes the web call.
Here is some code i have written:
public string GetSomeData()
{
Task<string> stuff = CallApiAsync();
return stuff.result; //does this block here?
}
private async Task<string> CallApiasync()
{
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient())
{
string response = await httpClient.GetStringAsync(Util.EndPoint).ConfigureAwait(false);
return response;
}
}
I thought the idea was as follows but please correct any misconceptions.
The caller of CallApi can call the method and when it hits await there is a Task created which represents some work to be done asynchronously but that will take some time. At this point the thread reaches an await returns to the thread pool to do something else ie handle a different request. Once the Task completes the await line wakes up and the code continues from there as if it was synchronous.
If this is the case why do i need to return a Task from my apimethod. The caller seems to have to call stuff.Result which implies that the task may not have finished and calling result could block ? Note i don't want to make the calling method async too as then the method that calls that would need to be async etc etc.
What is the order of event here in my code?
One other question is why did i need to set configureAwait to false? otherwise everything hangs.
Id like to do this asynchronously or rather non blocking so that the thread pool doesnt get starved. However i dont want to change all my code in the service only the bit that makes the web call.
That's not possible. In order to be truly asynchronous, you must allow async to "grow" through the code as far as it needs to. What you're trying to do is block on an asynchronous call, which won't give you any benefit (you're freeing up a thread by using async, but then you're turning around and consuming a thread by using Result).
At this point the thread reaches an await returns to the thread pool to do something else ie handle a different request.
Not quite. When an async method hits an await, it returns an incomplete Task to its caller. If the caller, in turn, awaits that task, then it returns an incomplete Task to its caller, etc. When the ASP.NET runtime receives an incomplete Task from your action/service method/whatever, then it releases the thread to the thread pool.
So, you do have to go "async all the way" to see the real benefit of async.
I have an async intro on my blog if you want a more gentle introduction, as well as an MSDN article on async best practices (one of which is: async all the way). I also have a blog post that describes the deadlock you were seeing.
The compiler handles a lot of the magic behind the async pattern for you, but syntactically, you have to tell it what you want it to do by providing a method prototype that says "ok, this is an asynchronous operation that can be awaited."
For this to happen, your method must return a Task or Task<T>.
Any Task can be awaited.
You should be VERY careful when using .Result and .Wait(), as they can block in some very unexpected circumstances, because the runtime may decide to execute your method synchronously.
You should say:
await CallApiAsync();
or, to actually take advantage of it:
Task stuff = CallApiAsync();
//More code that can happen independetly of "stuff"
await stuff;
In order to do that, your GetSomeData() function must also be marked as async, but it doesn't have to, itself, return a Task.
Finished copy of a working async version of your code:
public async string GetSomeData()
{
Task stuff = CallApiAsync();
return await stuff;
}
private async Task<string> CallApiasync()
{
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient())
{
string response = await httpClient.GetStringAsync(Util.EndPoint).ConfigureAwait(false);
return response;
}
}
Honestly, if that's all the CallApiAsync function is ever going to do, you may as well inline it, though.
When I use an async-await method (as the example below) in a HttpClient call, this code causes a deadlock. Replacing the async-await method with a t.ContinueWith, it works properly. Why?
public class MyFilter: ActionFilterAttribute {
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) {
var user = _authService.GetUserAsync(username).Result;
}
}
public class AuthService: IAuthService {
public async Task<User> GetUserAsync (string username) {
var jsonUsr = await _httpClientWrp.GetStringAsync(url).ConfigureAwait(false);
return await JsonConvert.DeserializeObjectAsync<User>(jsonUsr);
}
}
This works:
public class HttpClientWrapper : IHttpClient {
public Task<string> GetStringAsync(string url) {
return _client.GetStringAsync(url).ContinueWith(t => {
_log.InfoFormat("Response: {0}", url);
return t.Result;
});
}
This code will deadlock:
public class HttpClientWrapper : IHttpClient {
public async Task<string> GetStringAsync(string url) {
string result = await _client.GetStringAsync(url);
_log.InfoFormat("Response: {0}", url);
return result;
}
}
I describe this deadlock behavior on my blog and in a recent MSDN article.
await will by default schedule its continuation to run inside the current SynchronizationContext, or (if there is no SynchronizationContext) the current TaskScheduler. (Which in this case is the ASP.NET request SynchronizationContext).
The ASP.NET SynchronizationContext represents the request context, and ASP.NET only allows one thread in that context at a time.
So, when the HTTP request completes, it attempts to enter the SynchronizationContext to run InfoFormat. However, there is already a thread in the SynchronizationContext - the one blocked on Result (waiting for the async method to complete).
On the other hand, the default behavior for ContinueWith by default will schedule its continuation to the current TaskScheduler (which in this case is the thread pool TaskScheduler).
As others have noted, it's best to use await "all the way", i.e., don't block on async code. Unfortunately, that's not an option in this case since MVC does not support asynchronous action filters (as a side note, please vote for this support here).
So, your options are to use ConfigureAwait(false) or to just use synchronous methods. In this case, I recommend synchronous methods. ConfigureAwait(false) only works if the Task it's applied to has not already completed, so I recommend that once you use ConfigureAwait(false), you should use it for every await in the method after that point (and in this case, in each method in the call stack). If ConfigureAwait(false) is being used for efficiency reasons, then that's fine (because it's technically optional). In this case, ConfigureAwait(false) would be necessary for correctness reasons, so IMO it creates a maintenance burden. Synchronous methods would be clearer.
An explanation on why your await deadlocks
Your first line:
var user = _authService.GetUserAsync(username).Result;
blocks that thread and the current context while it waits for the result of GetUserAsync.
When using await it attempts to run any remaining statements back on the original context after the task being waited on finishes, which causes deadlocks if the original context is blocked (which is is because of the .Result). It looks like you attempted to preempt this problem by using .ConfigureAwait(false) in GetUserAsync, however by the time that that await is in effect it's too late because another await is encountered first. The actual execution path looks like this:
_authService.GetUserAsync(username)
_httpClientWrp.GetStringAsync(url) // not actually awaiting yet (it needs a result before it can be awaited)
await _client.GetStringAsync(url) // here's the first await that takes effect
When _client.GetStringAsync finishes, the rest of the code can't continue on the original context because that context is blocked.
Why ContinueWith behaves differently
ContinueWith doesn't try to run the other block on the original context (unless you tell it to with an additional parameter) and thus does not suffer from this problem.
This is the difference in behavior that you noticed.
A solution with async
If you still want to use async instead of ContinueWith, you can add the .ConfigureAwait(false) to the first encountered async:
string result = await _client.GetStringAsync(url).ConfigureAwait(false);
which as you most likely already know, tells await not to try to run the remaining code on the original context.
Note for the future
Whenever possible, attempt to not use blocking methods when using async/await. See Preventing a deadlock when calling an async method without using await for avoiding this in the future.
Granted, my answer is only partial, but I'll go ahead with it anyway.
Your Task.ContinueWith(...) call does not specify the scheduler, therefore TaskScheduler.Current will be used - whatever that is at the time. Your await snippet, however, will run on the captured context when the awaited task completes, so the two bits of code may or may not produce similar behaviour - depending on the value of TaskScheduler.Current.
If, say, your first snippet is called from the UI code directly (in which case TaskScheduler.Current == TaskScheduler.Default, the continuation (logging code) will execute on the default TaskScheduler - that is, on the thread pool.
In the second snippet, however, the continuation (logging) will actually run on the UI thread regardless of whether you use ConfigureAwait(false) on the task returned by GetStringAsync, or not. ConfigureAwait(false) will only affect the execution of the code after the call to GetStringAsync is awaited.
Here's something else to illustrate this:
private async void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await this.Blah().ConfigureAwait(false);
// InvalidOperationException here.
this.Text = "Oh noes, I'm no longer on the UI thread.";
}
private async Task Blah()
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
this.Text = "Hi, I'm on the UI thread.";
}
The given code sets the Text within Blah() just fine, but it throws a cross-threading exception inside the continuation in the Load handler.
I found the other solutions posted here did not work for me on ASP .NET MVC 5, which still uses synchronous Action Filters. The posted solutions don't guarantee a new thread will be used, they just specify that the same thread does not HAVE to be used.
My solution is to use Task.Factory.StartNew() and specifying TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning in the method call. This ensures a new/different thread is always used, so you can be assured you will never get a deadlock.
So, using the OP example, the following is the solution that works for me:
public class MyFilter: ActionFilterAttribute {
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext) {
// var user = _authService.GetUserAsync(username).Result;
// Guarantees a new/different thread will be used to make the enclosed action
// avoiding deadlocking the calling thread
var user = Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => _authService.GetUserAsync(username).Result,
TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning).Result;
}
}