Develop Reference

What is the simplest way to run a single background task from a controller in .NET Core?

I have an ASP.NET Core web app, with WebAPI controllers. All I am trying to do is, in some of the controllers, be able to kick off a process that would run in the background, but the controller should go ahead and return before that process is done. I don't want the consumers of the service to have to wait for this job to finish.
I have seen all of the posts about IHostedService and BackgroundService, but none of them seem to be what I want. Also, all these examples show you how to set things up, but not how to actually call it, or I am not understanding some of it.
I tried these, but when you register an IHostedService in Startup, it runs immediately at that point in time. This is not what I want. I don't want to run the task at startup, I want to be able to call it from a controller when it needs to. Also, I may have several different ones, so just registering services.AddHostedService() won't work because I might have a MyServiceB and MyServiceC, so how do I get the right one from the controller (I can't just inject IHostedService)?
Ultimately, everything I have seen has been a huge, convoluted mess of code for something that seems like it should be such a simple thing to do. What am I missing?

You have the following options:
IHostedService classes can be long running methods that run in the background for the lifetime of your app. In order to make them to handle some sort of background task, you need to implement some sort of "global" queue system in your app for the controllers to store the data/events. This queue system can be as simple as a Singleton class with a ConcurrentQueue that you pass in to your controller, or something like an IDistributedCache or more complex external pub/sub systems. Then you can just poll the queue in your IHostedService and run certain operations based on it. Here is a microsoft example of IHostedService implementation for handling queues https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/host/hosted-services?view=aspnetcore-3.1&tabs=visual-studio#queued-background-tasks
Note that the Singleton class approach can cause issues in multi-server environments.
Example implementation of the Singleton approach can be like:
// Needs to be registered as a Singleton in your Startup.cs
public class BackgroundJobs {
public ConcurrentQueue<string> BackgroundTasks {get; set;} = new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
}
public class MyController : ControllerBase{
private readonly BackgroundJobs _backgroundJobs;
public MyController(BackgroundJobs backgroundJobs) {
_backgroundJobs = backgroundJobs;
}
public async Task<ActionResult> FireAndForgetEndPoint(){
_backgroundJobs.BackgroundTasks.Enqueue("SomeJobIdentifier");
}
}
public class MyBackgroundService : IHostedService {
private readonly BackgroundJobs _backgroundJobs;
public MyBackgroundService(BackgroundJobs backgroundJobs)
{
_backgroundJobs = backgroundJobs;
}
public void StartAsync(CancellationToken ct)
{
while(!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if(_backgroundJobs.BackgroundTasks.TryDequeue(out var jobId))
{
// Code to do long running operation
}
Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); // You really don't want an infinite loop here without having any sort of delays.
}
}
}
Create a method that returns a Task, pass in a IServiceProvider to that method and create a new Scope in there to make sure ASP.NET would not kill the task when the controller Action completes. Something like
IServiceProvider _serviceProvider;
public async Task<ActionResult> FireAndForgetEndPoint()
{
// Do stuff
_ = FireAndForgetOperation(_serviceProvider);
Return Ok();
}
public async Task FireAndForgetOperation(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
using (var scope = _serviceProvider.CreateScope()){
await Task.Delay(1000);
//... Long running tasks
}
}
Update: Here is the Microsoft example of doing something similar: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/performance/performance-best-practices?view=aspnetcore-3.1#do-not-capture-services-injected-into-the-controllers-on-background-threads

As I understand from your question you want to create a fire and forget task like logging to database. In this scenario you don't have to wait for log to be inserted database. It also took much of my time to discover an easily implementable solution. Here is what I have found:
In your controller parameters, add IServiceScopeFactory. This will not effect the request body or header. After that create a scope and call your service over it.
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult MoveRecordingToStorage([FromBody] StreamingRequestModel req, [FromServices] IServiceScopeFactory serviceScopeFactory)
{
// Move record to Azure storage in the background
Task.Run(async () =>
{
try
{
using var scope = serviceScopeFactory.CreateScope();
var repository = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<ICloudStorage>();
await repository.UploadFileToAzure(req.RecordedPath, key, req.Id, req.RecordCode);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e);
}
});
return Ok("In progress..");
}
After posting your request, you will immediately receive In Progress.. text but your task will run in the background.
One more thing, If you don't create your task in this way and try to call database operations you will receive an error like this which means your database object is already dead and you are trying to access it;
Cannot access a disposed object. A common cause of this error is disposing a context that was resolved from dependency injection and then later trying to use the same context instance elsewhere in your application. This may occur if you are calling Dispose() on the context, or wrapping the context in a using statement. If you are using dependency injection, you should let the dependency injection container take care of disposing context instances.\r\nObject name: 'DBContext'.
My code is based on Repository pattern. You should not forget to inject service class in your Startup.cs
services.AddScoped<ICloudStorage, AzureCloudStorage>();
Find the detailed documentation here.

What is the simplest way to run a single background task from a controller in .NET Core?
I don't want the consumers of the service to have to wait for this job to finish.
Ultimately, everything I have seen has been a huge, convoluted mess of code for something that seems like it should be such a simple thing to do. What am I missing?
The problem is that ASP.NET is a framework for writing web services, which are applications that respond to requests. But as soon as your code says "I don't want the consumers of the service to have to wait", then you're talking about running code outside of a request (i.e., request-extrinsic code). This is why all solutions are complex: your code has to bypass/extend the framework itself in an attempt to force it to do something it wasn't designed to do.
The only proper solution for request-extrinsic code is to have a durable queue with a separate background process. Anything in-process (e.g., ConcurrentQueue with an IHostedService) will have reliability problems; in particular, those solutions will occasionally lose work.

Invoke AspNetCore.Diagnostics.HealthCheck from code without a call to HTTP endpoint?

I have added the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Diagnostics.HealthChecks on a collection of Service Fabric services, some of which have a HTTP ServiceEndpoints and some do not.
For the ones which do not have a service endpoint, if I wanted to add some implementations of IHealthCheck and add them to the ServiceCollection in StartUp as follows:
services
.AddHealthChecks()
.AddCheck<DatabaseHealthCheck>("Database")
.AddCheck<Api1HealthCheck>("Dependency API 1")
.AddCheck<Api2HealthCheck>("Dependency API 2");
is there a way of invoking those health checks without calling a HTTP endpoint on the service itself?
These particular services have a while loop like this in the RunAsync method currently to output a heartbeat to the logs:
public async Task RunAsync(string appInstanceDesc, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
long iterations = 0;
var sleepTimeSpan = _config.PollingInterval.GetTimeSpan();
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
_logger.LogInformation("Cancellation requested - shutting down");
break;
}
_logger?.LogDebug($"CR Heartbeat log iteration
{++iterations}{appInstanceDesc}");
Thread.Sleep(sleepTimeSpan);
}
}
Is there a way to invoke the HealthCheck classes from within that loop so that the results of which can be output to the logs?

Assuming that you added built-in health check framework:
services.AddHealthChecks()
If you do:
.. appBuilder.ApplicationServices.GetService<HealthCheckService>();
or
.. serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<HealthCheckService>();
in order to manually execute the CheckHealthAsync and get a HealthReport back that contains the statuses:
HealthReport healthReport = await healthCheckService.CheckHealthAsync();
Make sure that you are using the right HealthCheckService because it exists at two places, in:
using Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.HealthChecks;
and in:
using Microsoft.Extensions.HealthChecks;
In my case, I had to use the one from Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.HealthChecks

I think you can do it like this:
Get a HealthCheckService instance from the container (IServiceProvider).
Pass it to your service if needed
Call healthCheckService.CheckHealthAsync to get the health status.
(bonus) Use await Task.Delay(sleepTimeSpan) instead of Thread.Sleep
This idea is based on the middleware code here.

Azure Durable Function error handling: Is there a way to identify which retry you are on?

The Durable Functions documentation specifies the following pattern to set up automatic handling of retries when an exception is raised within an activity function:
public static async Task Run(DurableOrchestrationContext context)
{
var retryOptions = new RetryOptions(
firstRetryInterval: TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5),
maxNumberOfAttempts: 3);
await ctx.CallActivityWithRetryAsync("FlakyFunction", retryOptions, "ABC");
// ...
}
However I can't see a way to check which retry you're up to within the activity function:
[FunctionName("FlakyFunction")]
public static string[] MyFlakyFunction(
[ActivityTrigger] string id,
ILogger log)
{
// Is there a built-in way to tell what retry attempt I'm up to here?
var retry = ??
DoFlakyStuffThatMayCauseException();
}
EDIT: I know it can probably be handled by mangling some sort of count into the RetryOptions.Handle delegate, but that's a horrible solution. It can be handled manually by maintaining an external state each time it's executed, but given that there's an internal count of retries I'm just wondering if there's any way to access that. Primary intended use is debugging and logging, but I can think of many other uses.

There does not seem to be a way to identify the retry. Activity functions are unaware of state and retries. When the CallActivityWithRetryAsync call is made the DurableOrchestrationContext calls the ScheduleWithRetry method of the OrchestrationContext class inside the DurableTask framework:
public virtual Task<T> ScheduleWithRetry<T>(string name, string version, RetryOptions retryOptions, params object[] parameters)
{
Task<T> RetryCall() => ScheduleTask<T>(name, version, parameters);
var retryInterceptor = new RetryInterceptor<T>(this, retryOptions, RetryCall);
return retryInterceptor.Invoke();
}
There the Invoke method on the RetryInterceptor class is called and that does a foreach loop over the maximum number of retries. This class does not expose properties or methods to obtain the number of retries.
Another workaround to help with debugging could be logging statements inside the activity function. And when you're running it locally you can put in a breakpoint there to see how often it stops there. Note that there is already a feature request to handle better logging for retries. You could add your feedback there or raise a new issue if you feel that's more appropriate.
To be honest, I think it's good that an activity is unaware of state and retries. That should be the responsibility of the orchestrator. It would be useful however if you could get some statistics on retries to see if there is a trend in performance degradation.

Working with the database inside Filter attribute

I am working on a filter attribute in my ASP.NET Core Web application which will validate input model parameters. I need to compare some input parameters with some another value from SQL DB. Is that good practice to open DB connection inside filters?

Filter attributes are good for capturing cross-cutting concerns, across multiple action methods and/or controllers. If this is your case, then using filter attributes is a good way to go.
Actually, filters are just another step in request handling pipeline, exactly like the step that invokes an action method. So basically, under the hood, it makes no difference whether you perform validation in a filter or in the action method.
A couple of considerations:
Implement an asynchronous filter. In this way, you can await for the DB operation, and avoid blocking request thread. Again, exactly for this reason you would implement an async action.
Whatever technology you use for accessing the DB, make sure it uses connection pooling. So that you don't actually open a database connection on every request, but use a ready connection from the pool.
An example of async filter, quoted from Microsoft Docs on ASP.NET Core filters
public class SampleAsyncActionFilter : IAsyncActionFilter
{
public async Task OnActionExecutionAsync(
ActionExecutingContext context,
ActionExecutionDelegate next)
{
// do something before the action executes
var resultContext = await next();
// do something after the action executes; resultContext.Result will be set
}
}
See also links in this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/40718992/4544845

Overriding Web API ApiControllerActionInvoker Causes Methods to run twice when exceptions thrown

I recently ran into a problem where I was developing an API which talked to two data sources in some methods. The POST for a couple methods modified SQL data through the use of entity framework as well a data source using as an old SDK that was STA COM based. To get the STA COM SDK code to work correctly from within the API methods, I had to create method attributes that identified the methods as needing to be single threaded. I forced single threading by overriding the InvokeActionAsync() method from ApiControllerActionInvoker. If a method was not given an attribute to be single threaded, the overridden invoker simply used the normal base class InvokeActionAsync().
public class SmartHttpActionInvoker: ApiControllerActionInvoker
{
public override Task<HttpResponseMessage> InvokeActionAsync(HttpActionContext context, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Determine whether action has attribute UseStaThread
bool useStaThread = context.ActionDescriptor.GetCustomAttributes<UseStaThreadAttribute>().Any();
// If it doesn't, simply return the result of the base method
if (!useStaThread)
{
return base.InvokeActionAsync(context, cancellationToken);
}
// Otherwise, create an single thread and then call the base method
Task<HttpResponseMessage> responseTask = Task.Factory.StartNewSta(() => base.InvokeActionAsync(context, cancellationToken).Result);
return responseTask;
}
}
public static class TaskFactoryExtensions
{
private static readonly TaskScheduler _staScheduler = new StaTaskScheduler(numberOfThreads: 1);
public static Task<TResult> StartNewSta<TResult>(this TaskFactory factory, Func<TResult> action)
{
return factory.StartNew(action, CancellationToken.None, TaskCreationOptions.None, _staScheduler);
}
}
public static void Register(HttpConfiguration config)
{
....
config.Services.Replace(typeof(IHttpActionInvoker), new SmartHttpActionInvoker());
...
}
This worked well until I noticed something odd. My Logging database was logging duplicate records when a method NOT marked as single threaded was throwing a HttpResponseException back to the client. This behavior did not exist when the same method returned OK().
Debugging, I noticed the code execute in the API method, then reach the throw statement. The next line after the exception was thrown to be shown in debugger was the InvokeActionAsync() code I wrote. Following this the method was run again, in full, hitting the thrown exception, the action invoker, and then returning the result to the client. Effectively, it appears my use of overriding the InvokeActionAsync causes the Action invoker to be called twice somehow... but I am not sure how.
EDIT: Confirmed that the System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId for the current thread when it is thrown and logged is different for each execution of the API method. So, this reinforces my belief two threads are being created instead of one. Still not sure why.
Anyone have any experience with overriding the InvokeActionAsync behavior that might be able to explain this behavior? Thanks!