C# 8 adds support for asynchronuous iterator blocks, so you can await things and return an IAsyncEnumarator instead of an IEnumerable:
public async IAsyncEnumerable<int> EnumerateAsync() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
yield return i;
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
With a non-blocking consuming code that looks like this:
await foreach (var item in EnumerateAsync()) {
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
This will result in my code running for about 10 seconds. However, sometimes I want to break out of the await foreach before all elements are consumed. With an breakhowever, we would need to wait until the current awaited Task.Delay has finished. How can we break immediately out of that loop without waiting for any dangling async tasks?
The use of a CancellationToken is the solution since that is the only thing that can cancel the Task.Delay in your code. The way we get it inside your IAsyncEnumerable is to pass it as a parameter when creating it, so let's do that:
public async IAsyncEnumerable<int> EnumerateAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken = default) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
yield return i;
await Task.Delay(1000, cancellationToken);
}
}
With the consuming side of:
// In this example the cancellation token will be caneled after 2.5 seconds
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2.5));
await foreach (var item in EnumerateAsync(cts.Token)) {
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
Sure, this will cancel the enumeration after 3 elements were returned, but will end in an TaskCanceledException thrown out of Task.Delay. To gracefully exit the await foreach we have to catch it and break on the producing side:
public async IAsyncEnumerable<int> EnumerateAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken = default) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
yield return i;
try {
await Task.Delay(1000, cancellationToken);
} catch (TaskCanceledException) {
yield break;
}
}
}
Note
As of now this is still in preview and is subject to possible change. If you are interested in this topic you can watch a discussion of the C# language team about CancellationToken in an IAsyncEnumeration.
Related
I have a loop that creates 5 Tasks. How can I insert a Delay of 5 seconds between each Task. I don't know how to fit Task.Delay(5000) in there.
var tasks = new List<Task<int>>();
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
tasks.Add(ProcessQueueAsync());
}
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
My ProcessQueAsync method calls a server, retrieves data and returns and int.
private async Task<int> ProcessQueAsync()
{
var result = await CallToServer();
return result.Count;
}
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
tasks.Add(ProcessQueueAsync());
await Task.Delay(5000);
}
Or:
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
await ProcessQueueAsync();
await Task.Delay(5000);
}
Depending on that you want.
If you want the tasks to run one after the other, with a 5 second delay, you should perhaps look at Task.ContinueWith instead of using Task.WhenAll. This would allow you to run tasks in serial rather than in parallel.
This question already has answers here:
Parallel.ForEach and async-await [duplicate]
(4 answers)
Parallel foreach with asynchronous lambda
(10 answers)
Closed 23 days ago.
I am working on a plugin for a program that needs to make API calls, I was previously making them all synchronously which, well it worked, was slow.
To combat this I am trying to make the calls asynchronous, I can make 10 per second so I was trying the following:
Parallel.ForEach(
items.Values,
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 10 },
async item => {
await item.UpdateMarketData(client, HQOnly.Checked, retainers);
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
);
client is an HttpClient object and the rest is used to build the API call or for the stuff done to the result of the API call. Each time item.UpdateMarketData() is called 1 and only 1 API call is made.
This code seems to be finishing very quickly and as I understand it, the program should wait for a Parallel.ForEach() to complete before continuing.
The data that should be set by item.UpdateMarketData() is not being set either. In order to make sure, I have even set MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 1 and the Delay to 3 seconds and it still finished very quickly despite having ~44 items to go though. Any help would be appreciated.
UpdateMarketData() is included below just in case it is relevant:
public async Task UpdateMarketData(TextBox DebugTextBox,HttpClient client,
bool HQOnly, List<string> retainers)
{
HttpResponseMessage sellers_result = null;
try
{
sellers_result = await client.GetAsync(String.Format(
"www.apiImCalling/items/{0}?key=secretapikey", ID));
}
catch (Exception e)
{
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(
String.Format("{0} Exception caught.", e));
sellers_result = null;
}
var results = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<RootObjectMB>(
sellers_result.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result);
int count = 0;
OnMB = false;
LowestOnMB = false;
LowestPrice = int.MaxValue;
try
{
foreach (var x in results.Prices)
{
if (x.IsHQ | !(HQOnly && RequireHQ))
{
count++;
if (count == 1)
{
LowestPrice = x.PricePerUnit;
}
if (retainers.Contains(x.RetainerName))
{
Retainer = x.RetainerName;
OnMB = true;
Price = x.PricePerUnit;
if (count == 1)
{
LowestOnMB = true;
}
}
if (LowestPrice == x.PricePerUnit
&& x.RetainerName != Retainer)
{
LowestOnMB = false;
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(
String.Format("{0} Exception caught.", e));
}
}
async doesn't work with Parallel. One is asynchronous, the other is parallel, and these are two completely different styles of concurrency.
To restrict the concurrency of asynchronous operations, use SemaphoreSlim. E.g.:
var mutex = new SemaphoreSlim(10);
var tasks = items.Values.Select(item => DoUpdateMarketData(item)).ToList();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
async Task DoUpdateMarketData(Item item)
{
await mutex.WaitAsync();
try
{
await item.UpdateMarketData(client, HQOnly.Checked, retainers);
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
finally { mutex.Release(); }
}
You may find my book helpful; this is covered in recipe 11.5.
Rather then parallel.for loop , you can make use of Task and wait for all task to complete.
var tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var val in items.Values)
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(val.UpdateMarketData(client, HQOnly.Checked, retainers)));
try
{
// Wait for all the tasks to finish.
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
//make use of WhenAll method if you dont want to block thread, and want to use async/await
Console.WriteLine("update completed");
}
catch (AggregateException e)
{
Console.WriteLine("\nThe following exceptions have been thrown by WaitAll(): (THIS WAS EXPECTED)");
for (int j = 0; j < e.InnerExceptions.Count; j++)
{
Console.WriteLine("\n-------------------------------------------------\n{0}", e.InnerExceptions[j].ToString());
}
}
Suppose I kick off 5 async tasks, and I want to print the results in the order they were requested:
public async void RunTasks()
{
var tasks = new List<Task<int>>();
for(int i=1; i<=5; i++)
{
tasks.Add(DoSomething(i));
}
var results = await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
Console.WriteLine(String.Join(',', results));
}
public async Task<int> DoSomething(int taskNumber)
{
var random = new Random();
await Task.Delay(random.Next(5000));
return taskNumber;
}
This will always print "1,2,3,4,5" - because Task.WhenAll() orders the results by the order requested, not by the order in which they finished.
Unfortunately this means I have to wait for ALL Tasks to finish until I can print anything.
How might I instead print the result of each task as soon as it's finished, but still respecting the order they were requested?
So I should always see "1,2,3,4,5" - but it may arrive gradually:
"1"
"1,2,3"
"1,2,3,4"
"1,2,3,4,5"
(no need to worry about the actual reasoning for doing this, treat it as a fun problem)
var tasks = new List<Task<int>>();
for(int i=1; i<=5; i++)
{
tasks.Add(DoSomething(i));
}
foreach (var task in tasks)
{
var result = await task;
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
We kick off all of the tasks first, then loop over them in order, awaiting each in turn. If the task being awaited has previously completed, the await just returns its result. Otherwise we wait until it completes.
Try a TransformBlock it will output the items it processes one by one in the order the were received by default even if the elements are processed in parallel.
public async Task Order()
{
var tBlock = new TransformBlock<int, string>(async x =>
{
await Task.Delay(100);
return x.ToString();
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions() { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 10 });
var sub = tBlock.AsObservable().Subscribe(x => Console.Write(x));
foreach (var num in Enumerable.Range(0, 10))
{
tBlock.Post(num);
}
tBlock.Complete();
await tBlock.Completion;
sub.Dispose();
}
Output:
0123456789
I would like to write a method which accept several parameters, including an action and a retry amount and invoke it.
So I have this code:
public static IEnumerable<Task> RunWithRetries<T>(List<T> source, int threads, Func<T, Task<bool>> action, int retries, string method)
{
object lockObj = new object();
int index = 0;
return new Action(async () =>
{
while (true)
{
T item;
lock (lockObj)
{
if (index < source.Count)
{
item = source[index];
index++;
}
else
break;
}
int retry = retries;
while (retry > 0)
{
try
{
bool res = await action(item);
if (res)
retry = -1;
else
//sleep if not success..
Thread.Sleep(200);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
LoggerAgent.LogException(e, method);
}
finally
{
retry--;
}
}
}
}).RunParallel(threads);
}
RunParallel is an extention method for Action, its look like this:
public static IEnumerable<Task> RunParallel(this Action action, int amount)
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < amount; i++)
{
Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(action);
tasks.Add(task);
}
return tasks;
}
Now, the issue: The thread is just disappearing or collapsing without waiting for the action to finish.
I wrote this example code:
private static async Task ex()
{
List<int> ints = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
ints.Add(i);
}
var tasks = RetryComponent.RunWithRetries(ints, 100, async (num) =>
{
try
{
List<string> test = await fetchSmthFromDb();
Console.WriteLine("#" + num + " " + test[0]);
return test[0] == "test";
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.StackTrace);
return false;
}
}, 5, "test");
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
The fetchSmthFromDb is a simple Task> which fetches something from the db and works perfectly fine when invoked outside of this example.
Whenever the List<string> test = await fetchSmthFromDb(); row is invoked, the thread seems to be closing and the Console.WriteLine("#" + num + " " + test[0]); not even being triggered, also when debugging the breakpoint never hit.
The Final Working Code
private static async Task DoWithRetries(Func<Task> action, int retryCount, string method)
{
while (true)
{
try
{
await action();
break;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
LoggerAgent.LogException(e, method);
}
if (retryCount <= 0)
break;
retryCount--;
await Task.Delay(200);
};
}
public static async Task RunWithRetries<T>(List<T> source, int threads, Func<T, Task<bool>> action, int retries, string method)
{
Func<T, Task> newAction = async (item) =>
{
await DoWithRetries(async ()=>
{
await action(item);
}, retries, method);
};
await source.ParallelForEachAsync(newAction, threads);
}
The problem is in this line:
return new Action(async () => ...
You start an async operation with the async lambda, but don't return a task to await on. I.e. it runs on worker threads, but you'll never find out when it's done. And your program terminates before the async operation is complete -that's why you don't see any output.
It needs to be:
return new Func<Task>(async () => ...
UPDATE
First, you need to split responsibilities of methods, so you don't mix retry policy (which should not be hardcoded to a check of a boolean result) with running tasks in parallel.
Then, as previously mentioned, you run your while (true) loop 100 times instead of doing things in parallel.
As #MachineLearning pointed out, use Task.Delay instead of Thread.Sleep.
Overall, your solution looks like this:
using System.Collections.Async;
static async Task DoWithRetries(Func<Task> action, int retryCount, string method)
{
while (true)
{
try
{
await action();
break;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
LoggerAgent.LogException(e, method);
}
if (retryCount <= 0)
break;
retryCount--;
await Task.Delay(millisecondsDelay: 200);
};
}
static async Task Example()
{
List<int> ints = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
ints.Add(i);
Func<int, Task> actionOnItem =
async item =>
{
await DoWithRetries(async () =>
{
List<string> test = await fetchSmthFromDb();
Console.WriteLine("#" + item + " " + test[0]);
if (test[0] != "test")
throw new InvalidOperationException("unexpected result"); // will be re-tried
},
retryCount: 5,
method: "test");
};
await ints.ParallelForEachAsync(actionOnItem, maxDegreeOfParalellism: 100);
}
You need to use the AsyncEnumerator NuGet Package in order to use the ParallelForEachAsync extension method from the System.Collections.Async namespace.
Besides the final complete reengineering, I think it's very important to underline what was really wrong with the original code.
0) First of all, as #Serge Semenov immediately pointed out, Action has to be replaced with
Func<Task>
But there are still other two essential changes.
1) With an async delegate as argument it is necessary to use the more recent Task.Run instead of the older pattern new TaskFactory.StartNew (or otherwise you have to add Unwrap() explicitly)
2) Moreover the ex() method can't be async since Task.WhenAll must be waited with Wait() and without await.
At that point, even though there are logical errors that need reengineering, from a pure technical standpoint it does work and the output is produced.
A test is available online: http://rextester.com/HMMI93124
I want to perform multiple loops in the same time using async Task (I don't want use Parallel.ForEach)
I do :
static async void Run()
{
await MultiTasks();
}
static async Task MultiTasks()
{
var Loop1 = Loop1Async();
var Loop2 = Loop2Async();
await Loop1;
await Loop2;
}
static async Task Loop1Async()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Loop 1 : " + i);
}
}
static async Task Loop2Async()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Loop 2 : " + i);
}
}
Run() is called in my Main method.
But the two loop is not executed in the same time. Once the first lap is completed, the second begins
Why and how to do this ?
You have the fundamental misunderstanding common to beginner users of await.
Let me be very clear about this. Await does not make something asynchronous. It asynchronously waits for an asynchronous operation to complete.
You are awaiting a synchronous operation. There is absolutely nothing asynchronous about the methods you are calling; await does not make them asynchronous. Rather, if they were asynchronous, then the await would return control to the caller immediately, so that the caller could continue to do work. When the asynchronous work finishes, then at some point in the future the remainder of the method is executed, with the awaited result.
Loop1Async and Loop2Async in fact are synchronous. Consider using WriteLineAsync method.
You can also use Task.WhenAll in MultiTasks.
Try .WhenAll(...)
static async Task MultiTasks()
{
var Loop1 = Loop1Async();
var Loop2 = Loop2Async();
await Task.WhenAll(Loop1, Loop2);
}
As others have noted your async methods do not currently yield execution.
You need something that will allow threads to yield back to the system so they can actually run in parallel. Something like this...
static async Task Loop1Async()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Loop 1 : " + i);
await Task.Yield();
}
}
static async Task Loop2Async()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Loop 2 : " + i);
await Task.Yield();
}
}
Your Loop1Async and Loop2Async methods does not have an await inside. For a method to be async it needs to have 1 or more await