i making ~20 http get requests using one httpclient, this httpclient is long living, means it is not packed into a using statement. As the webservice is normally pretty fast (response time ~200ms) i set the timeout to 5sec.
Now i ran into the problem, if one request runs into that timeout all other requests get cancelled. Is this the normal behaviour?
Here is the code i am using to make conccurent calls
public async Task GetAll()
{
await Task.WhenAll(x => x.Select(xx => GetData(xx.Id));
}
Code to call the api:
public async Task GetData(int id)
{
string payload = "";
try
{
var resp = await base.GetAsync($"/apis/v2/getdata/{id}");
if (!resp.IsSuccessStatusCode)
Console.WriteLine("Error");
payload = await resp.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
Console.WriteLine(payload);
}
catch (System.Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Error");
}
}
My Base HttpClient Class
public class MyHttpClient : System.Net.Http.HttpClient
{
public Logger Log { get; set; }
}
If i run the task in sequential order everything works fine, but when i run them in parallel and one task runs into a timeout all other not finished task will be cancelled.
If any of the supplied tasks completes in a faulted state, the returned task will also complete in a Faulted state, where its exceptions will contain the aggregation of the set of unwrapped exceptions from each of the supplied tasks.
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.threading.tasks.task.whenall?view=netframework-4.8
Related
Trying to roughly follow MSDN, I've added a hosted service after my scoped services in StartUp class.
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.AddScoped<IUtilityService, UtilityService>();
services.AddHostedService<StartupService>();
...
}
I've implemented StartAsync like this.
public class StartupService : IHostedService
{
private IServiceProvider Provider { get; }
public StartupService(IServiceProvider provider)
{
Provider = provider;
}
public Task StartAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
IServiceScope scope = Provider.CreateScope();
IUtilityService service = scope.ServiceProvider
.GetRequiredService<IUtilityService>();
service.Seed();
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
public Task StopAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
I've read a number of articles and blogs but it's above my ability to understand what should be returned at the end of the methods. It seems to work for now but I can clearly see that I'm breaching the idea by not using asynchronous calls and returninig a dummy (not even that at stop!) so I can safely conclude that I'm doing it wrong (although not apparently but I'm sure it's coming to bite my behind in the future).
What should I return in the implementation to ensure I'm "working with" not agains the framework?
StartAsync needs to return a Task, which may or may not be running (but ideally it should be running, thats the point of a HostedService - an operation/task that runs for the lifetime of the application, or just for some extended period of time longer than normal).
It looks like you are trying to perform extra startup items using a HostedService, instead of just trying to run a task/operation that will last for the entire lifetime of the application.
If this is the case, you can have a pretty simple setup. The thing you want to return from your StartAsync() method is a Task. When you return a Task.CompletedTask, you are saying that the work is already done and there is no code executing - the task is completed. What you want to return is your code that is doing your extra startup items that is running inside of a Task object. The good thing about the HostedService in asp.net is that it does not matter how long the task runs for (since it is meant to run tasks for the entire lifetime of the app).
One important note before the code example - if you are using a Scoped service in your task, then you need to generate a scope with the IServiceScopeFactory, read about that in this StackOverflow post
If you refactor your service method to return a task, you could just return that:
public Task StartAsync(CancellationToken)
{
IServiceScope scope = Provider.CreateScope();
IUtilityService service = scope.ServiceProvider
.GetRequiredService<IUtilityService>();
// If Seed returns a Task
return service.Seed();
}
If you have multiple service methods that all return a task, you could return a task that is waiting for all of the tasks to finish
public Task StartAsync(CancellationToken)
{
IServiceScope scope = Provider.CreateScope();
IUtilityService service = scope.ServiceProvider
.GetRequiredService<IUtilityService>();
ISomeOtherService someOtherService = scope.ServiceProvider
.GetRequiredService<ISomeOtherService>();
var tasks = new List<Task>();
tasks.Add(service.Seed());
tasks.Add(someOtherService.SomeOtherStartupTask());
return Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
If your startup tasks do alot of CPU bound work, just return a Task.Run(() => {});
public Task StartAsync(CancellationToken)
{
// Return a task which represents my long running cpu startup work...
return Task.Run(() => {
IServiceScope scope = Provider.CreateScope();
IUtilityService service = scope.ServiceProvider
.GetRequiredService<IUtilityService>();
service.LongRunningCpuStartupMethod1();
service.LongRunningCpuStartupMethod2();
}
}
To use your cancellation token, some of the example code below shows how it can be done, by Catching a TaskCanceledException in a Try/Catch, and forcefully exiting our running loop.
Then we move on to tasks that will run for the entire application lifetime.
Heres the base class that I use for all of my HostedService implementations that are designed to never stop running until the application shuts down.
public abstract class HostedService : IHostedService
{
// Example untested base class code kindly provided by David Fowler: https://gist.github.com/davidfowl/a7dd5064d9dcf35b6eae1a7953d615e3
private Task _executingTask;
private CancellationTokenSource _cts;
public Task StartAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Create a linked token so we can trigger cancellation outside of this token's cancellation
_cts = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(cancellationToken);
// Store the task we're executing
_executingTask = ExecuteAsync(_cts.Token);
// If the task is completed then return it, otherwise it's running
return _executingTask.IsCompleted ? _executingTask : Task.CompletedTask;
}
public virtual async Task StopAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Stop called without start
if (_executingTask == null)
{
return;
}
// Signal cancellation to the executing method
_cts.Cancel();
// Wait until the task completes or the stop token triggers
await Task.WhenAny(_executingTask, Task.Delay(-1, cancellationToken));
// Throw if cancellation triggered
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
// Derived classes should override this and execute a long running method until
// cancellation is requested
protected abstract Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
}
In this Base Class, you will see that when StartAsync is called, we invoke our ExecuteAsync() method which returns a Task that contains a while loop - the Task will not stop running until our cancellation token is triggered, or the application gracefully/forcefully stops.
The ExecuteAsync() method needs to be implemented by any class inheriting from this base class, which should be all of your HostedService's.
Here is an example HostedService implementation that inherits from this Base class designed to checkin every 30 seconds. You will notice that the ExecuteAsync() method enters into a while loop and never exits - it will 'tick' once every second, and this is where you can invoke other methods such as checking in to another server on some regular interval. All of the code in this loop is returned in the Task to StartAsync() and returned to the caller. The task will not die until the while loop exits or the application dies, or the cancellation token is triggered.
public class CounterHostedService : HostedService
{
private readonly IServiceScopeFactory _scopeFactory;
private readonly ILog _logger;
public CounterHostedService(IServiceScopeFactory scopeFactory, ILog logger)
{
_scopeFactory = scopeFactory;
_logger = logger;
}
// Checkin every 30 seconds
private int CheckinFrequency = 30;
private DateTime CheckedIn;
protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
int counter = 0;
var runningTasks = new List<Task>();
while (true)
{
// This loop will run for the lifetime of the application.
// Time since last checkin is checked every tick. If time since last exceeds the frequency, we perform the action without breaking the execution of our main Task
var timeSinceCheckin = (DateTime.UtcNow - CheckedIn).TotalSeconds;
if (timeSinceCheckin > CheckinFrequency)
{
var checkinTask = Checkin();
runningTasks.Add(checkinTask);
}
try
{
// The loop will 'tick' every second.
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1), cancellationToken);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException)
{
// Break out of the long running task because the Task was cancelled externally
break;
}
counter++;
}
}
// Custom override of StopAsync. This is only triggered when the application
// GRACEFULLY shuts down. If it is not graceful, this code will not execute. Neither will the code for StopAsync in the base method.
public override async Task StopAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
_logger.Info($"HostedService Gracefully Shutting down");
// Perform base StopAsync
await base.StopAsync(cancellationToken);
}
// Creates a task that performs a checkin, and returns the running task
private Task Checkin()
{
return Task.Run(async () =>
{
// await DoTheThingThatWillCheckin();
});
}
}
Notice you can also override the StopAsync() method to do some logging, and anything else needed for your shutdown events. Try to avoid critical logic in StopAsync, as its not guaranteed to be called.
I have a service framework that contains many services and I can see each service's status in a web panel as well. So, in my solution:
In StartAsync method, I initialize and start all jobs, so the system waits for the jobs to be finished, after finishing, I return Task.CompletedTask
In StopAsync, I try to stop all jobs and ensure they're stopped successfully, then return Task.CompletedTask
I have the following four tests and the last one hangs when I run it. Why does this happen:
[Test]
public void CheckOnceResultTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(CheckStatus().Result);
}
[Test]
public async void CheckOnceAwaitTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
}
[Test]
public async void CheckStatusTwiceAwaitTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
}
[Test]
public async void CheckStatusTwiceResultTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(CheckStatus().Result); // This hangs
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
}
private async Task<bool> CheckStatus()
{
var restClient = new RestClient(#"https://api.test.nordnet.se/next/1");
Task<IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus>> restResponse = restClient.ExecuteTaskAsync<DummyServiceStatus>(new RestRequest(Method.GET));
IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus> response = await restResponse;
return response.Data.SystemRunning;
}
I use this extension method for restsharp RestClient:
public static class RestClientExt
{
public static Task<IRestResponse<T>> ExecuteTaskAsync<T>(this RestClient client, IRestRequest request) where T : new()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<IRestResponse<T>>();
RestRequestAsyncHandle asyncHandle = client.ExecuteAsync<T>(request, tcs.SetResult);
return tcs.Task;
}
}
public class DummyServiceStatus
{
public string Message { get; set; }
public bool ValidVersion { get; set; }
public bool SystemRunning { get; set; }
public bool SkipPhrase { get; set; }
public long Timestamp { get; set; }
}
Why does the last test hang?
Acquiring a value via an async method:
var result = Task.Run(() => asyncGetValue()).Result;
Syncronously calling an async method
Task.Run( () => asyncMethod()).Wait();
No deadlock issues will occur due to the use of Task.Run.
You're running into the standard deadlock situation that I describe on my blog and in an MSDN article: the async method is attempting to schedule its continuation onto a thread that is being blocked by the call to Result.
In this case, your SynchronizationContext is the one used by NUnit to execute async void test methods. I would try using async Task test methods instead.
You can avoid deadlock adding ConfigureAwait(false) to this line:
IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus> response = await restResponse;
=>
IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus> response = await restResponse.ConfigureAwait(false);
I've described this pitfall in my blog post Pitfalls of async/await
You are blocking the UI by using Task.Result property.
In MSDN Documentation they have clearly mentioned that,
"The Result property is a blocking property. If you try to access it
before its task is finished, the thread that's currently active is
blocked until the task completes and the value is available. In most
cases, you should access the value by using Await or await instead of
accessing the property directly."
The best solution for this scenario would be to remove both await & async from methods & use only Task where you're returning result. It won't mess your execution sequence.
An addition to the answer given by #HermanSchoenfeld. Unfortunately the quote below is not true:
No deadlock issues will occur due to the use of Task.Run.
public String GetSqlConnString(RubrikkUser user, RubrikkDb db)
{
// deadlock if called from threadpool,
// works fine on UI thread, works fine from console main
return Task.Run(() =>
GetSqlConnStringAsync(user, db)).Result;
}
The execution is wrapped inside a Task.Run, this will schedule the task on the threadpool the block the calling thread. This is okay, as long as the calling thread is not a threadpool thread. If the calling thread is from the threadpool then the following disaster happens: A new task is queued to the end of the queue, and the threadpool thread which would eventually execute the Task is blocked until the Task is executed.
In library code there is no easy solution as you cannot assume under what context your code is called. The best solution is to only call async code from async code, blocking sync APIs from sync methods, don’t mix them.
Source:
https://medium.com/rubrikkgroup/understanding-async-avoiding-deadlocks-e41f8f2c6f5d
If you don't get any callbacks or the control hangs up, after calling the service/API async function, you have to configure Context to return a result on the same called context.
Use TestAsync().ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
You will be facing this issue only in web applications, but not in static void main.
I have the following four tests and the last one hangs when I run it. Why does this happen:
[Test]
public void CheckOnceResultTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(CheckStatus().Result);
}
[Test]
public async void CheckOnceAwaitTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
}
[Test]
public async void CheckStatusTwiceAwaitTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
}
[Test]
public async void CheckStatusTwiceResultTest()
{
Assert.IsTrue(CheckStatus().Result); // This hangs
Assert.IsTrue(await CheckStatus());
}
private async Task<bool> CheckStatus()
{
var restClient = new RestClient(#"https://api.test.nordnet.se/next/1");
Task<IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus>> restResponse = restClient.ExecuteTaskAsync<DummyServiceStatus>(new RestRequest(Method.GET));
IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus> response = await restResponse;
return response.Data.SystemRunning;
}
I use this extension method for restsharp RestClient:
public static class RestClientExt
{
public static Task<IRestResponse<T>> ExecuteTaskAsync<T>(this RestClient client, IRestRequest request) where T : new()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<IRestResponse<T>>();
RestRequestAsyncHandle asyncHandle = client.ExecuteAsync<T>(request, tcs.SetResult);
return tcs.Task;
}
}
public class DummyServiceStatus
{
public string Message { get; set; }
public bool ValidVersion { get; set; }
public bool SystemRunning { get; set; }
public bool SkipPhrase { get; set; }
public long Timestamp { get; set; }
}
Why does the last test hang?
Acquiring a value via an async method:
var result = Task.Run(() => asyncGetValue()).Result;
Syncronously calling an async method
Task.Run( () => asyncMethod()).Wait();
No deadlock issues will occur due to the use of Task.Run.
You're running into the standard deadlock situation that I describe on my blog and in an MSDN article: the async method is attempting to schedule its continuation onto a thread that is being blocked by the call to Result.
In this case, your SynchronizationContext is the one used by NUnit to execute async void test methods. I would try using async Task test methods instead.
You can avoid deadlock adding ConfigureAwait(false) to this line:
IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus> response = await restResponse;
=>
IRestResponse<DummyServiceStatus> response = await restResponse.ConfigureAwait(false);
I've described this pitfall in my blog post Pitfalls of async/await
You are blocking the UI by using Task.Result property.
In MSDN Documentation they have clearly mentioned that,
"The Result property is a blocking property. If you try to access it
before its task is finished, the thread that's currently active is
blocked until the task completes and the value is available. In most
cases, you should access the value by using Await or await instead of
accessing the property directly."
The best solution for this scenario would be to remove both await & async from methods & use only Task where you're returning result. It won't mess your execution sequence.
An addition to the answer given by #HermanSchoenfeld. Unfortunately the quote below is not true:
No deadlock issues will occur due to the use of Task.Run.
public String GetSqlConnString(RubrikkUser user, RubrikkDb db)
{
// deadlock if called from threadpool,
// works fine on UI thread, works fine from console main
return Task.Run(() =>
GetSqlConnStringAsync(user, db)).Result;
}
The execution is wrapped inside a Task.Run, this will schedule the task on the threadpool the block the calling thread. This is okay, as long as the calling thread is not a threadpool thread. If the calling thread is from the threadpool then the following disaster happens: A new task is queued to the end of the queue, and the threadpool thread which would eventually execute the Task is blocked until the Task is executed.
In library code there is no easy solution as you cannot assume under what context your code is called. The best solution is to only call async code from async code, blocking sync APIs from sync methods, don’t mix them.
Source:
https://medium.com/rubrikkgroup/understanding-async-avoiding-deadlocks-e41f8f2c6f5d
If you don't get any callbacks or the control hangs up, after calling the service/API async function, you have to configure Context to return a result on the same called context.
Use TestAsync().ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
You will be facing this issue only in web applications, but not in static void main.
When I am using async await and an exception is thrown the thread context is being lost. In my code I'm using dependency injection that registered to resolve per thread so I need to execute my code on the same thread.
This is how it is setup:
I have a method that will try calling different communicators using async when one throws an exception it will go onto the next one:
public async Task<TResponse> VisitRequestAsync(Context context)
{
/* ....
prepare request from context
.... */
var communicatorEnumerableInstance = _communicatorService.GetCommunicatorInstanceEnumerable();
foreach (var communicator in communicatorEnumerableInstance)
{
using (communicator)
{
var communicatorInstance = communicator as ICommunicator<TResponse, TRequest>;
try
{
return await communicatorInstance.ProcessAsync(request).ConfigureAwait(true);
break;// call will break out of the for-each loop if successful processed.
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
continue;// Continue to load next communication method/instance
}
}
}
}
Below is a unit test that contains a communicator that always throws an exception and one that tries to get a dependency that is registered onto the original thread.
public class TestDependancy : ITestDependancy
{
}
public interface ITestDependancy
{ }
public class TestCommunicatorThrowsException :
ICommunicator<ResponseType, RequestType>
{
public async Task<ResponseType> ProcessAsync(RequestType request)
{
var task = Task.Run(() =>
{
throw new Exception();
return new ResponseType();
});
return await task;
}
public void Dispose()
{
}
}
public class TestCommunicatorGetsDependency :
ICommunicator<ResponseType, RequestType>
{
public TestCommunicatorGetsDependency()
{ }
public async Task<ResponseType> ProcessAsync(RequestType request)
{
TestDependancy = DefaultFactory.Default.Resolve<ITestDependancy>();
var task = Task.Run(() => new ResponseType());
return await task;
}
public ITestDependancy TestDependancy { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
}
}
[TestMethod]
[TestCategory("Unit")]
public async Task it_should_be_able_to_resolve_interface_from_original_thread()
{
var secondCommunicator = new TestCommunicatorGetsDependency();
_communicators = new ICommunicator<ResponseType, RequestType>[]
{new TestCommunicatorThrowsException(), secondCommunicator};
_communicatorServiceMock.Setup(
x => x.GetCommunicatorInstanceEnumerable(It.IsAny<string>(), It.IsAny<string>()))
.Returns(_communicators);
((IFactoryRegistrar) DefaultFactory.Default).RegisterPerThread<ITestDependancy, TestDependancy>();
var firstInstance = DefaultFactory.Default.Resolve<ITestDependancy>();
await it.VisitRequestAsync(_context).ConfigureAwait(true);
var secondInstance = secondCommunicator.TestDependancy;
Assert.AreEqual(firstInstance, secondInstance);
}
When the dependencies are resolved in the unit test they are not equal. After looking into it I see that the value for CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId changes at the point when the exception gets thrown. Then when it is caught in the VistRequestAsync method the CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId is never restored to its original state. So then the dependency injection is unable to get the same instance because it is now operating on a different thread.
Originally, I was using .ConfigureAwait(false) with the await. Then I tried setting it to true and I started seeing it sometimes get the same thread back. Which sounds a lot like what is said in this answer.
This post about the synchronization context and async sounds a lot like the problem I am facing. My trouble is I'm using WebApi and need a response back when things get done so I'm not sure how to use his message pump and asynchronously wait for an answer.
Async uses the ThreadPool to process tasks. This means that there is no guarantee that an async operation will start and complete on the same thread.
When a async task is first awaited, the task is put on a work queue. As soon as possible, the task scheduler grabs that task from the queue and assigns it to one of the many available threads.
For more information, see this overview of the structure of the TPL: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd460717(v=vs.110).aspx.
If you need a context that flows with the thread, look at using something like the logical call context or CallContext.LogicalSetData / LogicalGetData.
But the behavior you're seeing is correct, and as mentioned has nothing to do with whether or not an exception is thrown. You'll see different thread ids at various points of an asynchronous task's scheduling, execution, and completion.
I seem to be getting a TaskCanceledException whenever I return another Task synchronously instead of awaiting it, following the guidelines in When at last you await.
TaskCanceledException code
public static class Download
{
public static Task<byte[]> FromYouTubeAsync(string videoUri)
{
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
return FromYouTubeAsync(
() => client
.GetStringAsync(videoUri),
uri => client
.GetByteArrayAsync(uri));
}
}
public async static Task<byte[]> FromYouTubeAsync(
Func<Task<string>> sourceFactory, Func<string, Task<byte[]>> downloadFactory)
{
string source = await // TaskCanceledException here
sourceFactory()
.ConfigureAwait(false);
// find links
return await
downloadFactory(links.First())
.ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Exception-free code
Here, the first overload of the method's signature is changed to async, and it awaits the second overload. For some reason, this prevents the TaskCanceledException.
public static class Download
{
public async static Task<byte[]> FromYouTubeAsync(string videoUri)
{
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
return await FromYouTubeAsync(
() => client
.GetStringAsync(videoUri),
uri => client
.GetByteArrayAsync(uri));
}
}
public async static Task<byte[]> FromYouTubeAsync(
Func<Task<string>> sourceFactory, Func<string, Task<byte[]>> downloadFactory)
{
string source = await // No exception!
sourceFactory()
.ConfigureAwait(false);
// find links
return await
downloadFactory(links.First())
.ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Why does this happen and what can I do to fix it (besides awaiting the method, which wastes resources as described in the link above)?
Sorry, the link you posted is about applying an optimization which is only applicable if the method does nothing after its await. To quote the post:
In this case, however, we’re being handed a task to represent the last statement in the method, and thus it’s in effect already a representation of the entire method’s processing...
In your example, the task does not represent the last statement in the method. Look again:
public async static Task<byte[]> FromYouTubeAsync(string videoUri)
{
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
return await FromYouTubeAsync(...);
}
}
There's something happening after the await: specifically, the disposing of client. So the optimization mentioned in that blog post does not apply here.
This is why you're seeing an exception if you try to return the task directly:
public static Task<byte[]> FromYouTubeAsync(string videoUri)
{
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
return FromYouTubeAsync(...);
}
}
This code is starting the download, then disposing the HttpClient, and then returning the task. HttpClient will cancel any outstanding operations when it is disposed.
The code using await will (asynchronously) wait for the HTTP operation to complete before it disposes the HttpClient. That is the behavior you need, and await is the cleanest way to express it. In this case, it's not a "waste of resources" at all, because you have to defer disposing until after the download completes.