I'm having trouble trying to correctly architect the most efficient way to iterate several async tasks launched from a request object and then performing some other async tasks that depend on both the request object and the result of the first async task. I'm running a C# lambda function in AWS. I've tried a model like this (error handling and such has been omitted for brevity):
public async Task MyAsyncWrapper()
{
List<Task> Tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var Request in Requests)
{
var Continuation = this.ExecuteAsync(Request).ContinueWith(async x => {
var KeyValuePair<bool, string> Result = x.Result;
if (Result.Key == true)
{
await this.DoSomethingElseAsync(Request.Id, Request.Name, Result.Value);
Console.WriteLine("COMPLETED");
}
}
Tasks.Add(Continuation);
}
Task.WaitAll(Tasks.ToArray());
}
This approach results in the DoSomethingElseAsync() method not really getting awaited on and in a lot of my Lambda Function calls, I never get the "COMPLETED" output. I've also approached this in this method:
public async Task MyAsyncWrapper()
{
foreach (var Request in Requests)
{
KeyValuePair<bool, string> Result = await this.ExecuteAsync(Request);
if (Result.Key == true)
{
await this.DoSomethingElseAsync(Request.Id, Request.Name, Result.Value);
Console.WriteLine("COMPLETED");
}
}
}
This works, but I think it's wasteful, since I can only execute one iteration of the loop while waiting on the asnyc's to finish. I also have referenced Interleaved Tasks but the issue is that I basically have two loops, one to populate the tasks, and another to iterate them after they've completed, where I don't have access to the original Request object anymore. So basically this:
List<Task<KeyValuePair<bool, string>>> Tasks = new List<Task<KeyValuePair<bool, string>>>();
foreach (var Request in Requests)
{
Tasks.Add(ths.ExecuteAsync(Request);
}
foreach (Task<KeyValuePair<bool, string>> ResultTask in Tasks.Interleaved())
{
KeyValuePair<bool, string> Result = ResultTask.Result;
//Can't access the original request for this method's parameters
await this.DoSomethingElseAsync(???, ???, Result.Value);
}
Any ideas on better ways to implement this type of async chaining in a foreach loop? My ideal approach wouldn't be to return the request object back as part of the response from ExecuteAsync(), so I'd like to try and find other options if possible.
I may be misinterpreting, but why not move your "iteration" into it's own function and then use Task.WhenAll to wait for all iterations in parallel.
public async Task MyAsyncWrapper()
{
var allTasks = Requests.Select(ProcessRequest);
await Task.WhenAll(allTasks);
}
private async Task ProcessRequest(Request request)
{
KeyValuePair<bool, string> Result = await this.ExecuteAsync(request);
if (Result.Key == true)
{
await this.DoSomethingElseAsync(request.Id, request.Name, Result.Value);
Console.WriteLine("COMPLETED");
}
}
Consider using TPL dataflow:
var a = new TransformBlock<Input, OutputA>(async Input i=>
{
// do something async.
return new OutputA();
});
var b = new TransformBlock<OutputA, OutputB>(async OutputA i =>
{
// do more async.
return new OutputB();
});
var c = new ActionBlock<OutputB>(async OutputB i =>
{
// do some final async.
});
a.LinkTo(b, new DataflowLinkOptions { PropogateCompletion = true });
b.LinkTo(c, new DataflowLinkOptions { PropogateCompletion = true });
// push all of the items into the dataflow.
a.Post(new Input());
a.Complete();
// wait for it all to complete.
await c.Completion;
Related
I have a bunch of requests to process, some of which may complete synchronously.
I'd like to gather all results that are immediately available and return them early, while waiting for the rest.
Roughly like this:
List<Task<Result>> tasks = new ();
List<Result> results = new ();
foreach (var request in myRequests) {
var task = request.ProcessAsync();
if (task.IsCompleted)
results.Add(task.Result); // or Add(await task) ?
else
tasks.Add(task);
}
// send results that are available "immediately" while waiting for the rest
if (results.Count > 0) SendResults(results);
results = await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
SendResults(results);
I'm not sure whether relying on IsCompleted might be a bad idea; could there be situations where its result cannot be trusted, or where it may change back to false again, etc.?
Similarly, could it be dangerous to use task.Result even after checking IsCompleted, should one always prefer await task? What if were using ValueTask instead of Task?
I'm not sure whether relying on IsCompleted might be a bad idea; could there be situations where its result cannot be trusted...
If you're in a multithreaded context, it's possible that IsCompleted could return false at the moment when you check on it, but it completes immediately thereafter. In cases like the code you're using, the cost of this happening would be very low, so I wouldn't worry about it.
or where it may change back to false again, etc.?
No, once a Task completes, it cannot uncomplete.
could it be dangerous to use task.Result even after checking IsCompleted.
Nope, that should always be safe.
should one always prefer await task?
await is a great default when you don't have a specific reason to do something else, but there are a variety of use cases where other patterns might be useful. The use case you've highlighted is a good example, where you want to return the results of finished tasks without awaiting all of them.
As Stephen Cleary mentioned in a comment below, it may still be worthwhile to use await to maintain expected exception behavior. You might consider doing something more like this:
var requestsByIsCompleted = myRequests.ToLookup(r => r.IsCompleted);
// send results that are available "immediately" while waiting for the rest
SendResults(await Task.WhenAll(requestsByIsCompleted[true]));
SendResults(await Task.WhenAll(requestsByIsCompleted[false]));
What if were using ValueTask instead of Task?
The answers above apply equally to both types.
You could use code like this to continually send the results of completed tasks while waiting on others to complete.
foreach (var request in myRequests)
{
tasks.Add(request.ProcessAsync());
}
// wait for at least one task to be complete, then send all available results
while (tasks.Count > 0)
{
// wait for at least one task to complete
Task.WaitAny(tasks.ToArray());
// send results for each completed task
var completedTasks = tasks.Where(t => t.IsCompleted);
var results = completedTasks.Where(t => t.IsCompletedSuccessfully).Select(t => t.Result).ToList();
SendResults(results);
// TODO: handle completed but failed tasks here
// remove completed tasks from the tasks list and keep waiting
tasks.RemoveAll(t => completedTasks.Contains(t));
}
Using only await you can achieve the desired behavior:
async Task ProcessAsync(MyRequest request, Sender sender)
{
var result = await request.ProcessAsync();
await sender.SendAsync(result);
}
...
async Task ProcessAll()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach(var request in requests)
{
var task = ProcessAsync(request, sender);
// Dont await until all requests are queued up
tasks.Add(task);
}
// Await on all outstanding requests
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
There are already good answers, but in addition of them here is my suggestion too, on how to handle multiple tasks and process each task differently, maybe it will suit your needs. My example is with events, but you can replace them with some kind of state management that fits your needs.
public interface IRequestHandler
{
event Func<object, Task> Ready;
Task ProcessAsync();
}
public class RequestHandler : IRequestHandler
{
// Hier where you wraps your request:
// private object request;
private readonly int value;
public RequestHandler(int value)
=> this.value = value;
public event Func<object, Task> Ready;
public async Task ProcessAsync()
{
await Task.Delay(1000 * this.value);
// Hier where you calls:
// var result = await request.ProcessAsync();
//... then do something over the result or wrap the call in try catch for example
var result = $"RequestHandler {this.value} - [{DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString()}]";
if (this.Ready is not null)
{
// If result passes send the result to all subscribers
await this.Ready.Invoke($"RequestHandler {this.value} - [{DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString()}]");
}
}
}
static void Main()
{
var a = new RequestHandler(1);
a.Ready += PrintAsync;
var b = new RequestHandler(2);
b.Ready += PrintAsync;
var c = new RequestHandler(3);
c.Ready += PrintAsync;
var d= new RequestHandler(4);
d.Ready += PrintAsync;
var e = new RequestHandler(5);
e.Ready += PrintAsync;
var f = new RequestHandler(6);
f.Ready += PrintAsync;
var requests = new List<IRequestHandler>()
{
a, b, c, d, e, f
};
var tasks = requests
.Select(x => Task.Run(x.ProcessAsync));
// Hier you must await all of the tasks
Task
.Run(async () => await Task.WhenAll(tasks))
.Wait();
}
static Task PrintAsync(object output)
{
Console.WriteLine(output);
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
I would like to handle a collection in parallel, but I'm having trouble implementing it and I'm therefore hoping for some help.
The trouble arises if I want to call a method marked async in C#, within the lambda of the parallel loop. For example:
var bag = new ConcurrentBag<object>();
Parallel.ForEach(myCollection, async item =>
{
// some pre stuff
var response = await GetData(item);
bag.Add(response);
// some post stuff
}
var count = bag.Count;
The problem occurs with the count being 0, because all the threads created are effectively just background threads and the Parallel.ForEach call doesn't wait for completion. If I remove the async keyword, the method looks like this:
var bag = new ConcurrentBag<object>();
Parallel.ForEach(myCollection, item =>
{
// some pre stuff
var responseTask = await GetData(item);
responseTask.Wait();
var response = responseTask.Result;
bag.Add(response);
// some post stuff
}
var count = bag.Count;
It works, but it completely disables the await cleverness and I have to do some manual exception handling.. (Removed for brevity).
How can I implement a Parallel.ForEach loop, that uses the await keyword within the lambda? Is it possible?
The prototype of the Parallel.ForEach method takes an Action<T> as parameter, but I want it to wait for my asynchronous lambda.
If you just want simple parallelism, you can do this:
var bag = new ConcurrentBag<object>();
var tasks = myCollection.Select(async item =>
{
// some pre stuff
var response = await GetData(item);
bag.Add(response);
// some post stuff
});
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
var count = bag.Count;
If you need something more complex, check out Stephen Toub's ForEachAsync post.
You can use the ParallelForEachAsync extension method from AsyncEnumerator NuGet Package:
using Dasync.Collections;
var bag = new ConcurrentBag<object>();
await myCollection.ParallelForEachAsync(async item =>
{
// some pre stuff
var response = await GetData(item);
bag.Add(response);
// some post stuff
}, maxDegreeOfParallelism: 10);
var count = bag.Count;
Disclaimer: I'm the author of the AsyncEnumerator library, which is open source and licensed under MIT, and I'm posting this message just to help the community.
One of the new .NET 6 APIs is Parallel.ForEachAsync, a way to schedule asynchronous work that allows you to control the degree of parallelism:
var urls = new []
{
"https://dotnet.microsoft.com",
"https://www.microsoft.com",
"https://stackoverflow.com"
};
var client = new HttpClient();
var options = new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 2 };
await Parallel.ForEachAsync(urls, options, async (url, token) =>
{
var targetPath = Path.Combine(Path.GetTempPath(), "http_cache", url);
var response = await client.GetAsync(url);
if (response.IsSuccessStatusCode)
{
using var target = File.OpenWrite(targetPath);
await response.Content.CopyToAsync(target);
}
});
Another example in Scott Hanselman's blog.
The source, for reference.
With SemaphoreSlim you can achieve parallelism control.
var bag = new ConcurrentBag<object>();
var maxParallel = 20;
var throttler = new SemaphoreSlim(initialCount: maxParallel);
var tasks = myCollection.Select(async item =>
{
await throttler.WaitAsync();
try
{
var response = await GetData(item);
bag.Add(response);
}
finally
{
throttler.Release();
}
});
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
var count = bag.Count;
Simplest possible extension method compiled from other answers and the article referenced by the accepted asnwer:
public static async Task ParallelForEachAsync<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, Task> asyncAction, int maxDegreeOfParallelism)
{
var throttler = new SemaphoreSlim(initialCount: maxDegreeOfParallelism);
var tasks = source.Select(async item =>
{
await throttler.WaitAsync();
try
{
await asyncAction(item).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
finally
{
throttler.Release();
}
});
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
UPDATE: here's a simple modification that also supports a cancellation token like requested in the comments (untested)
public static async Task ParallelForEachAsync<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, CancellationToken, Task> asyncAction, int maxDegreeOfParallelism, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var throttler = new SemaphoreSlim(initialCount: maxDegreeOfParallelism);
var tasks = source.Select(async item =>
{
await throttler.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) return;
try
{
await asyncAction(item, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
finally
{
throttler.Release();
}
});
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
My lightweight implementation of ParallelForEach async.
Features:
Throttling (max degree of parallelism).
Exception handling (aggregation exception will be thrown at completion).
Memory efficient (no need to store the list of tasks).
public static class AsyncEx
{
public static async Task ParallelForEachAsync<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, Task> asyncAction, int maxDegreeOfParallelism = 10)
{
var semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(maxDegreeOfParallelism);
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
var exceptions = new ConcurrentBag<Exception>();
bool addingCompleted = false;
foreach (T item in source)
{
await semaphoreSlim.WaitAsync();
asyncAction(item).ContinueWith(t =>
{
semaphoreSlim.Release();
if (t.Exception != null)
{
exceptions.Add(t.Exception);
}
if (Volatile.Read(ref addingCompleted) && semaphoreSlim.CurrentCount == maxDegreeOfParallelism)
{
tcs.TrySetResult(null);
}
});
}
Volatile.Write(ref addingCompleted, true);
await tcs.Task;
if (exceptions.Count > 0)
{
throw new AggregateException(exceptions);
}
}
}
Usage example:
await Enumerable.Range(1, 10000).ParallelForEachAsync(async (i) =>
{
var data = await GetData(i);
}, maxDegreeOfParallelism: 100);
I've created an extension method for this which makes use of SemaphoreSlim and also allows to set maximum degree of parallelism
/// <summary>
/// Concurrently Executes async actions for each item of <see cref="IEnumerable<typeparamref name="T"/>
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">Type of IEnumerable</typeparam>
/// <param name="enumerable">instance of <see cref="IEnumerable<typeparamref name="T"/>"/></param>
/// <param name="action">an async <see cref="Action" /> to execute</param>
/// <param name="maxDegreeOfParallelism">Optional, An integer that represents the maximum degree of parallelism,
/// Must be grater than 0</param>
/// <returns>A Task representing an async operation</returns>
/// <exception cref="ArgumentOutOfRangeException">If the maxActionsToRunInParallel is less than 1</exception>
public static async Task ForEachAsyncConcurrent<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> enumerable,
Func<T, Task> action,
int? maxDegreeOfParallelism = null)
{
if (maxDegreeOfParallelism.HasValue)
{
using (var semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(
maxDegreeOfParallelism.Value, maxDegreeOfParallelism.Value))
{
var tasksWithThrottler = new List<Task>();
foreach (var item in enumerable)
{
// Increment the number of currently running tasks and wait if they are more than limit.
await semaphoreSlim.WaitAsync();
tasksWithThrottler.Add(Task.Run(async () =>
{
await action(item).ContinueWith(res =>
{
// action is completed, so decrement the number of currently running tasks
semaphoreSlim.Release();
});
}));
}
// Wait for all tasks to complete.
await Task.WhenAll(tasksWithThrottler.ToArray());
}
}
else
{
await Task.WhenAll(enumerable.Select(item => action(item)));
}
}
Sample Usage:
await enumerable.ForEachAsyncConcurrent(
async item =>
{
await SomeAsyncMethod(item);
},
5);
In the accepted answer the ConcurrentBag is not required.
Here's an implementation without it:
var tasks = myCollection.Select(GetData).ToList();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
var results = tasks.Select(t => t.Result);
Any of the "// some pre stuff" and "// some post stuff" can go into the GetData implementation (or another method that calls GetData)
Aside from being shorter, there's no use of an "async void" lambda, which is an anti pattern.
The following is set to work with IAsyncEnumerable but can be modified to use IEnumerable by just changing the type and removing the "await" on the foreach. It's far more appropriate for large sets of data than creating countless parallel tasks and then awaiting them all.
public static async Task ForEachAsyncConcurrent<T>(this IAsyncEnumerable<T> enumerable, Func<T, Task> action, int maxDegreeOfParallelism, int? boundedCapacity = null)
{
ActionBlock<T> block = new ActionBlock<T>(
action,
new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = maxDegreeOfParallelism,
BoundedCapacity = boundedCapacity ?? maxDegreeOfParallelism * 3
});
await foreach (T item in enumerable)
{
await block.SendAsync(item).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
block.Complete();
await block.Completion;
}
For a more simple solution (not sure if the most optimal), you can simply nest Parallel.ForEach inside a Task - as such
var options = new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 5 }
Task.Run(() =>
{
Parallel.ForEach(myCollection, options, item =>
{
DoWork(item);
}
}
The ParallelOptions will do the throttlering for you, out of the box.
I am using it in a real world scenario to run a very long operations in the background. These operations are called via HTTP and it was designed not to block the HTTP call while the long operation is running.
Calling HTTP for long background operation.
Operation starts at the background.
User gets status ID which can be used to check the status using another HTTP call.
The background operation update its status.
That way, the CI/CD call does not timeout because of long HTTP operation, rather it loops the status every x seconds without blocking the process
I want to create a collection of awaitable tasks, so that I can start them together and asynchronously process the result from each one as they complete.
I have this code, and a compilation error:
> cannot assign void to an implicitly-typed variable
If I understand well, the tasks return by Select don't have a return type, even though the delegate passed returns ColetaIsisViewModel, I would think:
public MainViewModel()
{
Task.Run(LoadItems);
}
async Task LoadItems()
{
IEnumerable<Task> tasks = Directory.GetDirectories(somePath)
.Select(dir => new Task(() =>
new ItemViewModel(new ItemSerializer().Deserialize(dir))));
foreach (var task in tasks)
{
var result = await task; // <-- here I get the compilation error
DoSomething(result);
}
}
You shouldn't ever use the Task constructor.
Since you're calling synchronous code (Deserialize), you could use Task.Run:
async Task LoadItems()
{
var tasks = Directory.GetDirectories(somePath)
.Select(dir => Task.Run(() =>
new ItemViewModel(new ItemSerializer().Deserialize(dir))));
foreach (var task in tasks)
{
var result = await task;
DoSomething(result);
}
}
Alternatively, you could use Parallel or Parallel LINQ:
void LoadItems()
{
var vms = Directory.GetDirectories(somePath)
.AsParallel().Select(dir =>
new ItemViewModel(new ItemSerializer().Deserialize(dir)))
.ToList();
foreach (var vm in vms)
{
DoSomething(vm);
}
}
Or, if you make Deserialize a truly async method, then you can make it all asynchronous:
async Task LoadItems()
{
var tasks = Directory.GetDirectories(somePath)
.Select(async dir =>
new ItemViewModel(await new ItemSerializer().DeserializeAsync(dir))));
foreach (var task in tasks)
{
var result = await task;
DoSomething(result);
}
}
Also, I recommend that you do not use fire-and-forget in your constructor. There are better patterns for asynchronous constructors.
I know the question has been answered, but you can always do this too:
var serializer = new ItemSerializer();
var directories = Directory.GetDirectories(somePath);
foreach (string directory in directories)
{
await Task.Run(() => serializer.Deserialize(directory))
.ContinueWith(priorTask => DoSomething(priorTask.Result));
}
Notice I pulled out the serializer instantiation (assuming there are no side effects).
I am trying to achieve following functionality using this code
1. I have list of items and i want process items in parallel way to speed up the process.
2. Also i want to wait until all the data in the list get processed and same thing i need to update in database
private async Task<bool> ProceeData<T>(IList<T> items,int typeId,Func<T, bool> updateRequestCheckPredicate, Func<T, bool> newRequestCheckPredicate)
{
continueFlag = (scripts.Count > =12 ) ? true : false;
await ProcessItems(items, updateRequestCheckPredicate, newRequestCheckPredicate);
//Wait Until all items get processed and Update Status in database
var updateStatus =UpdateStatus(typeId,DateTime.Now);
return continueFlag;
}
private async Task ProcessItems<T>(IList<T> items,Func<T, bool> updateRequestCheckPredicate, Func<T, bool> newRequestCheckPredicate)
{
var itemsToCreate = items.Where(newRequestCheckPredicate).ToList();
var createTask = scripts
.AsParallel().Select(item => CrateItem(item);
.ToArray();
var createTaskComplete = await Task.WhenAll(createTask);
var itemsToUpdate = items.Where(updateRequestCheckPredicate).ToList();
var updateTask = scripts
.AsParallel().Select(item => UpdateItem(item)
.ToArray();
var updateTaskComplete = await Task.WhenAll(updateTask);
}
private async Task<ResponseResult> CrateItem<T>(T item)
{
var response = new ResponseResult();
Guid requestGuid = Guid.NewGuid();
auditSave = SaveAuditData(requestGuid);
if (auditSaveInfo.IsUpdate)
{
response = await UpdateItem(item);
}
response = await CreateTicket<T>(item);
// Wait response
UpdateAuditData(response)
}
private async Task<ServiceNowResponseResult> CreateTicket<T>(T item)
{
// Rest call and need to wait for result
var response = await CreateNewTicket<T>(scriptObj, serviceRequestInfo);
return response;
}
I am new to await async concept and so anyone pls advice me whether i am doing is a right approach or If wrong pls help me with help of a sample code
All these AsParallel are not needed or desired, but you'd need to change the signature of your callbacks to be async.
Here's an example
async Task ProcessAllItems<T>(IEnumerable<T> items,
Func<T, Task<bool>> checkItem, // an async callback
Func<T, Task> processItem)
{
// if you want to group all the checkItem before any processItem is called
// then do WhenAll(items.Select(checkItem).ToList()) and inspect the result
// the code below executes all checkItem->processItem chains independently
List<Task> checkTasks = items
.Select(i => checkItem(i)
.ContinueWith(_ =>
{
if (_.Result)
return processItem(i);
return null;
}).Unwrap()) // .Unwrap takes the inner task of a Task<Task<>>
.ToList(); // when making collections of tasks ALWAYS materialize with ToList or ToArray to avoid accudental multiple executions
await Task.WhenAll(checkTasks);
}
And here's how to use it:
var items = Enumerable.Range(0, 10).ToList();
var process = ProcessAllItems(items,
checkItem: async (x) =>
{
await Task.Delay(5);
return x % 2 == 0;
},
processItem: async (x) =>
{
await Task.Delay(1);
Console.WriteLine(x);
});
I seem to be experiencing a deadlock with the following code, but I do not understand why.
From a certain point in code I call this method.
public async Task<SearchResult> Search(SearchData searchData)
{
var tasks = new List<Task<FolderResult>>();
using (var serviceClient = new Service.ServiceClient())
{
foreach (var result in MethodThatCallsWebservice(serviceClient, config, searchData))
tasks.Add(result);
return await GetResult(tasks);
}
Where GetResult is as following:
private static async Task<SearchResult> GetResult(IEnumerable<Task<FolderResult>> tasks)
{
var result = new SearchResult();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks).ConfigureAwait(false);
foreach (var taskResult in tasks.Select(p => p.MyResult))
{
foreach (var folder in taskResult.Result)
{
// Do stuff to fill result
}
}
return result;
}
The line var result = new SearchResult(); never completes, though the GUI is responsive because of the following code:
public async void DisplaySearchResult(Task<SearchResult> searchResult)
{
var result = await searchResult;
FillResultView(result);
}
This method is called via an event handler that called the Search method.
_view.Search += (sender, args) => _view.DisplaySearchResult(_model.Search(args.Value));
The first line of DisplaySearchResult gets called, which follows the path down to the GetResult method with the Task.WhenAll(...) part.
Why isn't the Task.WhenAll(...) ever completed? Did I not understand the use of await correctly?
If I run the tasks synchronously, I do get the result but then the GUI freezes:
foreach (var task in tasks)
task.RunSynchronously();
I read various solutions, but most were in combination with Task.WaitAll() and therefore did not help much. I also tried to use the help from this blogpost as you can see in DisplaySearchResult but I failed to get it to work.
Update 1:
The method MethodThatCallsWebservice:
private IEnumerable<Task<FolderResult>> MethodThatCallsWebservice(ServiceClient serviceClient, SearchData searchData)
{
// Doing stuff here to determine keys
foreach(var key in keys)
yield return new Task<FolderResult>(() => new FolderResult(key, serviceClient.GetStuff(input))); // NOTE: This is not the async variant
}
Since you have an asynchronous version of GetStuff (GetStuffAsync) it's much better to use it instead of offloading the synchronous GetStuff to a ThreadPool thread with Task.Run. This wastes threads and limits scalability.
async methods return a "hot" task so you don't need to call Start:
IEnumerable<Task<FolderResult>> MethodThatCallsWebservice(ServiceClient serviceClient, SearchData searchData)
{
return keys.Select(async key =>
new FolderResult(key, await serviceClient.GetStuffAsync(input)));
}
You need to start your tasks before you return them. Or even better use Task.Run.
This:
yield return new Task<FolderResult>(() =>
new FolderResult(key, serviceClient.GetStuff(input)))
// NOTE: This is not the async variant
Is better written as:
yield return Task.Run<FolderResult>(() =>
new FolderResult(key, serviceClient.GetStuff(input)));