Develop Reference

Async method blocking on unawaited task

In my current project, I have a piece of code that, after simplifying it down to where I'm having issues, looks something like this:
private async Task RunAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
bool finished = false;
while (!cancel.IsCancellationRequested && !finished)
finished = await FakeTask();
}
private Task<bool> FakeTask()
{
return Task.FromResult(false);
}
If I use this code without awaiting, I end up blocking anyway:
// example 1
var task = RunAsync(cancel); // Code blocks here...
... // Other code that could run while RunAsync is doing its thing, but is forced to wait
await task;
// example 2
var task = RunAsync(cancelSource.Token); // Code blocks here...
cancelSource.Cancel(); // Never called
In the actual project, I'm not actually using FakeTask, and there usually will be some Task.Delay I'm awaiting in there, so the code most of the time doesn't actually block, or only for a limited amount of iterations.
In unit testing, however, I'm using a mock object that does pretty much do what FakeTask does, so when I want to see if RunAsync responds to its CancellationToken getting cancelled the way I expect it to, I'm stuck.
I have found I can fix this issue by adding for example await Task.Delay(1) at the top of RunAsync, to force it to truly run asynchronous, but this feels a bit hacky. Are there better alternatives?

You have an incorrect mental picture of what await does. The meaning of await is:
Check to see if the awaitable object is complete. If it is, fetch its result and continue executing the coroutine.
If it is not complete, sign up the remainder of the current method as the continuation of the awaitable and suspend the coroutine by returning control to the caller. (Note that this makes it a semicoroutine.)
In your program, the "fake" awaitable is always complete, so there is never a suspension of the coroutine.
Are there better alternatives?
If your control flow logic requires you to suspend the coroutine then use Task.Yield.

Task.FromResult actually runs synchronously, as would await Task.Delay(0). If you want to actually simulate asynchronous code, call Task.Yield(). That creates an awaitable task that asynchronously yields back to the current context when awaited.

As #SLaks said, your code will run synchronously. One thing is running async code, and another thing is running parallel code.
If you need to run your code in parallel you can use Task.Run.
class Program
{
static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
var tcs = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = Task.Run(() => RunAsync("1", tcs.Token));
var task2 = Task.Run(() => RunAsync("2", tcs.Token));
await Task.Delay(1000);
tcs.Cancel();
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static async Task RunAsync(string source, CancellationToken cancel)
{
bool finished = false;
while (!cancel.IsCancellationRequested && !finished)
finished = await FakeTask(source);
}
private static Task<bool> FakeTask(string source)
{
Console.WriteLine(source);
return Task.FromResult(false);
}
}

C#'s async methods execute synchronously up to the point where they have to wait for a result.
In your example there is no such point where the method has to wait for a result, so the loop keeps running forever and thereby blocking the caller.
Inserting an await Task.Yield() to simulate some real async work should help.

Does a method has to be async when invoked inside an async method?

Lets say I have a method defined as follows:
public async Task CreateUser()
{
await GetUserDetails();
GetUserOrder();
}
private void GetUserDetails() {
private void GetUserOrder() {
Does the method GetUserDetails(); and GetUserOrder() have to be async as well to avoid UI blocking ?
I cannot await the GetUserDetails() method since it is not async. How can I achieve this in c# ? I want to ensure all these methods are invoked step by step.

The relevant question is in a comment:
How can I ensure all my methods are invoked completely sequentially?
The fact that you're asking the question indicates that you don't understand what "await" is. Await is the sequencing operation on a asynchronous workflows. An await means this workflow will not proceed until the awaited task is complete. It's an asynchronous wait, hence the name await.
Consider this question: in a synchronous workflow, what is the sequencing operation?
No, really, give it some thought.
.
.
.
It is ;. When you say
fResult = foo();
bResult = bar();
qResult = qux();
that means that foo has to finish completely before bar can begin. That is not true for asynchronous workflows. If we have
fTask = fooAsync();
bTask = barAsync();
qTask = quxAsync();
Then the asynchronous operations can complete in any order. If we say
await fooAsync();
await barAsync();
await quxAsync();
Then barAsync will not start until fooAsync's task completes. await sequences the asynchronous workflow. The difference is that the thread can continue to do other unrelated work while asynchronously waiting for foo to complete, which is not true in a synchronous workflow; in a synchronous workflow the thread is already busy computing the foo result, so it can't do other work.

yes if you want to wait than you have to write await for that methods also. because after first await your code agian will be synchronous ..and if UI thread than it will run on it.
1.you code will be , so by this code you code become asynchronous for GetUserORder also. you just have to wrap method in Task construct and return
public async Task CreateUser()
{
await GetUserDetails();
await Task.Factory.SartNew(()=> GetUserOrder());
}
2.or you can do this also
public async Task CreateUser()
{
await Task.Factory.SartNew(()=>{
GetUserDetails();
GetUserOrder(); });
}
3.or you can do like this also, in below code will not wait for getuserorder method and excute await one method
public async Task CreateUser()
{
Task.Factory.SartNew(()=> GetUserOrder()).ContinueWith((t)=> Console.WriteLine("Completed");
await GetUserDetails();
}
4.or last one variation, here you start GetUserOrder first and dont wait for it than you call GetUserDetails in async fashion , and if you want to work on GetUserOrder method want to wait just use Wait method.
public async Task CreateUser()
{
var task = Task.Factory.SartNew(()=> GetUserOrder());
await GetUserDetails();
if(!task.IsCompleted)
task.Wait();
}
in your case you can go for 3 and if you want to wait go for 4th one.
As you asked me in comment what is difference between Task.Run and statnew method -: for that you can check this SO question : Regarding usage of Task.Start() , Task.Run() and Task.Factory.StartNew()

You should put await only in front of async methods. To run a synchronous one that you don't want to wait, you can use a new thread from the tread pool:
new Thread(() => DoSomething()).Start();
or
Task.Factory.SartNew(()=> DoSomething());
Here is the help page: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd321439(v=vs.110).aspx
Otherwise, your call to GetUserDetails will have to finish before you execute the next line.

How to async this long running method?

I have this method which I would like to run asynchronously so that I can do other things while it runs. It does not rely on any other Async method (it doesn't call out to another resource, download a file or anything). I would like to avoid using new Task(), Task.Factory.StartTask() and Task.Run(), if possible.
Is it possible to run this method asynchronously, with tidy, readable code and without using Task explicitly?
If not, what is the tidiest way of running the method asynchronously?
Note: Please don't be concerned with the silly logic in the method - I have boiled it down to be deliberately slow but not show my actual code.
public static void main(string[] args)
{
RunMySlowLogic();
}
private void RunMySlowLogic()
{
while (true)
for (int i=0; i<100000000;i++)
if (i == new Random().Next(999))
return true;
}
Currently, I believe that I would need to wrap the method in a lambda or Task and mark it async. Where would the await go?

You're confusing two different things. You can run this in the background, and this method can be asynchronous. These are 2 different things and your method can do either, or both.
If you do something asynchronous in that method, like Task.Delay or some non-blocking I/O then call that method, await the returned task and make the method itself async:
async Task RunMySlowLogicAsync()
{
while (true)
{
// ...
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
If you don't have such a thing then your method isn't asynchronous, it's synchronous. You can still run it in the background on a different (ThreadPool) thread while you do other things using Task.Run:
var task = Task.Run(() => RunMySlowLogic());

There are multiple ways of executing code asynchronously in the .NET environment. Have a look at the Asynchronous Programming Patterns MSDN article.
Tasks are to make your job easier. I think the only valid reason to avoid using tasks is when you are targeting an older version of .NET.
So without Tasks, you can start a thread yourself, or use a ThreadPool (Tasks do this internally).
public static void main(string[] args)
{
var are = new AutoResetEvent(false);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(RunMySlowLogicWrapped, are);
// Do some other work here
are.WaitOne();
}
// you have to match the signature of WaitCallback delegate, we can use it to communicate cross-thread
private void RunMySlowLogicWrapped(Object state) {
AutoResetEvent are = (AutoResetEvent) state;
RunMySlowLogic();
are.Set();
}
private bool RunMySlowLogic()
{
while (true)
for (int i=0; i<100000000;i++)
if (i == new Random().Next(999))
return true;
}

Deadlock while using async/await

I'm trying to understand await and async.
It works very well. But now I have a deadlock.
I've called ConfigureAwait with false, like in this article, but my code is still blocking.
Here's a little snippet of my code:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var result = HeavyWorkAsync().Result;
richTextBox1.AppendText(result);
}
private string HeavyWork()
{
for (var index = 0; index < 1000; index++)
{
Task.Delay(10).Wait();
}
return "finished";
}
private async Task<string> HeavyWorkAsync()
{
var task = await Task.Factory.StartNew<string>(HeavyWork).ConfigureAwait(false);
return task;
}

What's blocking is not the task itself, it's the call to Result. A Task represents an asynchronous operation, but calling its Result property, or calling Wait() will block the current thread until the method returns. And in a lot of cases, it will cause a deadlock because the task is not able to complete with it's calling thread blocked!
To prevent that, chain the tasks asynchronously, using async and await
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var result = await HeavyWorkAsync(); // <=== await
richTextBox1.AppendText(result);
}
Also, Task.Delay(10).Wait(); completely defeats the prupose of using tasks in the first place: that will block the current thread. If that's really what you want to do (and it's pretty unlikely), call Thread.Sleep(10);instead, it will make your intent much clearer, and you will have less hoops to jump through. Or better, use await Task.Delay(10);in an async method.
About ConfigureAwait
What exactly does ConfigureAwait(false) do?
It removes the obligation for the continuation of the task to run in the same context as the caller of the task. In most cases that means that the continuation is no longer guaranteed to run on the same context. So if I have a method thad does Foo(), waits a little then Bar() like this one:
async Task DoStufAsync()
{
Foo();
await Task.Delay(10);
Bar(); // run in the same context as Foo()
}
I'm guaranteed Bar will run in the same context. If I had ConfigureAwait(false), it's no longer the case
async Task DoStufAsync()
{
Foo();
await Task.Delay(10).ConfigureAwait(false);
Bar(); // can run on another thread as Foo()
}
When you're using ConfigureAwait(false), you tell your program you dont mind about the context. It can solve some deadlocking problems, but isn't usually the right solution. The right solution is most likely never to wait for tasks in a blocking way, and being asynchronous all the way.

To expand upon Falanwe's answer, you should check out Stephen Cleary's blog post. Based off of the code I'm assuming that you are using a Windows Forms application, so a call to Task.Result will execute the task on the UI context, which in turn blocks the UI thread.

How do I create a Task that uses await inside the body that behaves the same as the synchronous version when Wait is called?

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.