Develop Reference

Should/Could this "recursive Task" be expressed as a TaskContinuation?

In my application I have the need to continually process some piece(s) of Work on some set interval(s). I had originally written a Task to continually check a given Task.Delay to see if it was completed, if so the Work would be processed that corresponded to that Task.Delay. The draw back to this method is the Task that checks these Task.Delays would be in a psuedo-infinite loop when no Task.Delay is completed.
To solve this problem I found that I could create a "recursive Task" (I am not sure what the jargon for this would be) that processes the work at the given interval as needed.
// New Recurring Work can be added by simply creating
// the Task below and adding an entry into this Dictionary.
// Recurring Work can be removed/stopped by looking
// it up in this Dictionary and calling its CTS.Cancel method.
private readonly object _LockRecurWork = new object();
private Dictionary<Work, Tuple<Task, CancellationTokenSource> RecurringWork { get; set; }
...
private Task CreateRecurringWorkTask(Work workToDo, CancellationTokenSource taskTokenSource)
{
return Task.Run(async () =>
{
// Do the Work, then wait the prescribed amount of time before doing it again
DoWork(workToDo);
await Task.Delay(workToDo.RecurRate, taskTokenSource.Token);
// If this Work's CancellationTokenSource is not
// cancelled then "schedule" the next Work execution
if (!taskTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
lock(_LockRecurWork)
{
RecurringWork[workToDo] = new Tuple<Task, CancellationTokenSource>
(CreateRecurringWorkTask(workToDo, taskTokenSource), taskTokenSource);
}
}
}, taskTokenSource.Token);
}
Should/Could this be represented with a chain of Task.ContinueWith? Would there be any benefit to such an implementation? Is there anything majorly wrong with the current implementation?

Yes!
Calling ContinueWith tells the Task to call your code as soon as it finishes. This is far faster than manually polling it.

Execute set of tasks in parallel but with a group timeout

I'm currently trying to write a status checking tool with a reliable timeout value. One way I'd seen how to do this was using Task.WhenAny() and including a Task.Delay, however it doesn't seem to produce the results I expect:
public void DoIUnderstandTasksTest()
{
var checkTasks = new List<Task>();
// Create a list of dummy tasks that should just delay or "wait"
// for some multiple of the timeout
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
checkTasks.Add(Task.Delay(_timeoutMilliseconds/2));
}
// Wrap the group of tasks in a task that will wait till they all finish
var allChecks = Task.WhenAll(checkTasks);
// I think WhenAny is supposed to return the first task that completes
bool didntTimeOut = Task.WhenAny(allChecks, Task.Delay(_timeoutMilliseconds)) == allChecks;
Assert.True(didntTimeOut);
}
What am I missing here?

I think you're confusing the workings of the When... calls with Wait....
Task.WhenAny doesn't return the first task to complete among those you pass to it. Rather, it returns a new Task that will be completed when any of the internal tasks finish. This means your equality check will always return false - the new task will never equal the previous one.
The behavior you're expecting seems similar to Task.WaitAny, which will block current execution until any of the internal tasks complete, and return the index of the completed task.
Using WaitAny, your code will look like this:
// Wrap the group of tasks in a task that will wait till they all finish
var allChecks = Task.WhenAll(checkTasks);
var taskIndexThatCompleted = Task.WaitAny(allChecks, Task.Delay(_timeoutMilliseconds));
Assert.AreEqual(0, taskIndexThatCompleted);

Windows 8 Thread improvements - alternative to Task.Run()?

I have inherited a C#/XAML/Win 8 application. There is some code which is set to run every n seconds.
The code that sets that up is:
if(!_syncThreadStarted)
{
await Task.Run(() => SyncToDatabase());
_syncThreadStarted = true;
}
The above code is ran once.
And then inside SyncToDatabase() we have:
while (true)
{
DatabaseSyncer dbSyncer = new DatabaseSyncer();
await dbSyncer.DeserializeAndUpdate();
await Task.Delay(10); // after elapsed time re-run above code
}
The method DeserializeAndUpdate queries a in-memory collection of objects and pushes those objects to a web service.
Sometimes the send request to the web service takes longer than expected meaning duplicate items are sent.
Question: Is there a way to have a thread or some type of thread pool/background worker which I can stop/abort/destroy inside the method SyncToDatabase() , and then initialize/start it once we are done? This will ensure no subsequent requests are fired while a previous request is still pending.
Edit: I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to Threads, but the logic I want is:
Create thread which runs some method every x seconds, and when it starts that thread stop the "running every x seconds" part, after thread has complete start the "run every x seconds" part again.
E.g. if the thread kicks off at 10:01:30AM and does not complete until 10:01:39AM (9 seconds) the next thread should start at 10:01:44AM (5 seconds after work completed) - does that make sense? I do not want 2 or more threads running at the same time.
Here is my code for the above:
var period = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5);
var completed = true;
ThreadPoolTimer syncTimer = ThreadPoolTimer.CreatePeriodicTimer(async (source) =>
{
// stop further threads from starting (in case this work takes longer than var period)
syncTimer.Cancel();
DatabaseSyncer dbSyncer = new DatabaseSyncer();
await dbSyncer.DeserializeAndUpdate(); // makes webservices calls
Dispatcher.RunAsync(CoreDispatcerPriority.High, async () =>
{
// Update UI
}
completed = true;
}, period,
(source) =>
{
if(!completed)
{
syncTimer.Cancel(); // not sure if this is correct...
}
}
Thanks,
Andrew)

This is not specific to Windows 8. Usually Task.Run is used for CPU-bound work, to offload it to a pool thread and keep the UI (or the core service loop) responsive. In your case, as far as I can tell, the main payload is dbSyncer.DeserializeAndUpdate, which is already asynchronous and most likely network-IO bound, rather than CPU-bound.
Besides, the author of the original code does _syncThreadStarted = true after await Task.Run(() => SyncToDatabase()). That doesn't make sense, because the work on the pool thread would have been already done by the time _syncThreadStarted = true is executed, thanks to the await.
To cancel the loop inside SyncToDatabase you could use Task Cancellation Pattern. Is SyncToDatabase itself an async method? I presume so, because there's an await in the while loop. Given that, the code which calls it could look something like this:
if(_syncTask != null && !_syncTask.IsCompleted)
{
_ct.Cancel();
// here you may want to make sure that the pending task has been fully shut down,
// keeping possible re-entrancy in mind
// See: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18999827/a-pattern-for-self-cancelling-and-restarting-task
_syncTask = null;
}
_ct = new CancellationTokenSource();
// _syncTask = SyncToDatabase(ct.Token); // do not await
// edited to run on another thread, as requested by the OP
var _syncTask = Task.Run(async () => await SyncToDatabase(ct.Token), ct.Token);
_syncThreadStarted = true;
And SyncToDatabase could look like:
async Task SyncToDatabase(CancellationToken token)
{
while (true)
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DatabaseSyncer dbSyncer = new DatabaseSyncer();
await dbSyncer.DeserializeAndUpdate();
await Task.Delay(10, token); // after elapsed time re-run above code
}
}
Check this answer for more details on how to cancel and restart a task.

I may have misunderstood the question, but the execution of SynchToDatabase() will wait on the completion of await dbSyncer.DeserializeAndUpdaet() (due to the await keyword, go figure ;)) before executing the continuation, which will then delay for 10 ms (do you want 10ms or did you mean 10 seconds? Parameter for Task.Delay is in milliseconds), then loop back to re-execute the DbSyncer method, so I don't see the problem.

Proper way to implement a never ending task. (Timers vs Task)

So, my app needs to perform an action almost continuously (with a pause of 10 seconds or so between each run) for as long as the app is running or a cancellation is requested. The work it needs to do has the possibility of taking up to 30 seconds.
Is it better to use a System.Timers.Timer and use AutoReset to make sure it doesn't perform the action before the previous "tick" has completed.
Or should I use a general Task in LongRunning mode with a cancellation token, and have a regular infinite while loop inside it calling the action doing the work with a 10 second Thread.Sleep between calls? As for the async/await model, I'm not sure it would be appropriate here as I don't have any return values from the work.
CancellationTokenSource wtoken;
Task task;
void StopWork()
{
wtoken.Cancel();
try
{
task.Wait();
} catch(AggregateException) { }
}
void StartWork()
{
wtoken = new CancellationTokenSource();
task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
wtoken.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DoWork();
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
}, wtoken, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
}
void DoWork()
{
// Some work that takes up to 30 seconds but isn't returning anything.
}
or just use a simple timer while using its AutoReset property, and call .Stop() to cancel it?

I'd use TPL Dataflow for this (since you're using .NET 4.5 and it uses Task internally). You can easily create an ActionBlock<TInput> which posts items to itself after it's processed it's action and waited an appropriate amount of time.
First, create a factory that will create your never-ending task:
ITargetBlock<DateTimeOffset> CreateNeverEndingTask(
Action<DateTimeOffset> action, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Validate parameters.
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
// Declare the block variable, it needs to be captured.
ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset> block = null;
// Create the block, it will call itself, so
// you need to separate the declaration and
// the assignment.
// Async so you can wait easily when the
// delay comes.
block = new ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset>(async now => {
// Perform the action.
action(now);
// Wait.
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken).
// Doing this here because synchronization context more than
// likely *doesn't* need to be captured for the continuation
// here. As a matter of fact, that would be downright
// dangerous.
ConfigureAwait(false);
// Post the action back to the block.
block.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now);
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions {
CancellationToken = cancellationToken
});
// Return the block.
return block;
}
I've chosen the ActionBlock<TInput> to take a DateTimeOffset structure; you have to pass a type parameter, and it might as well pass some useful state (you can change the nature of the state, if you want).
Also, note that the ActionBlock<TInput> by default processes only one item at a time, so you're guaranteed that only one action will be processed (meaning, you won't have to deal with reentrancy when it calls the Post extension method back on itself).
I've also passed the CancellationToken structure to both the constructor of the ActionBlock<TInput> and to the Task.Delay method call; if the process is cancelled, the cancellation will take place at the first possible opportunity.
From there, it's an easy refactoring of your code to store the ITargetBlock<DateTimeoffset> interface implemented by ActionBlock<TInput> (this is the higher-level abstraction representing blocks that are consumers, and you want to be able to trigger the consumption through a call to the Post extension method):
CancellationTokenSource wtoken;
ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset> task;
Your StartWork method:
void StartWork()
{
// Create the token source.
wtoken = new CancellationTokenSource();
// Set the task.
task = CreateNeverEndingTask(now => DoWork(), wtoken.Token);
// Start the task. Post the time.
task.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now);
}
And then your StopWork method:
void StopWork()
{
// CancellationTokenSource implements IDisposable.
using (wtoken)
{
// Cancel. This will cancel the task.
wtoken.Cancel();
}
// Set everything to null, since the references
// are on the class level and keeping them around
// is holding onto invalid state.
wtoken = null;
task = null;
}
Why would you want to use TPL Dataflow here? A few reasons:
Separation of concerns
The CreateNeverEndingTask method is now a factory that creates your "service" so to speak. You control when it starts and stops, and it's completely self-contained. You don't have to interweave state control of the timer with other aspects of your code. You simply create the block, start it, and stop it when you're done.
More efficient use of threads/tasks/resources
The default scheduler for the blocks in TPL data flow is the same for a Task, which is the thread pool. By using the ActionBlock<TInput> to process your action, as well as a call to Task.Delay, you're yielding control of the thread that you were using when you're not actually doing anything. Granted, this actually leads to some overhead when you spawn up the new Task that will process the continuation, but that should be small, considering you aren't processing this in a tight loop (you're waiting ten seconds between invocations).
If the DoWork function actually can be made awaitable (namely, in that it returns a Task), then you can (possibly) optimize this even more by tweaking the factory method above to take a Func<DateTimeOffset, CancellationToken, Task> instead of an Action<DateTimeOffset>, like so:
ITargetBlock<DateTimeOffset> CreateNeverEndingTask(
Func<DateTimeOffset, CancellationToken, Task> action,
CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// Validate parameters.
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
// Declare the block variable, it needs to be captured.
ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset> block = null;
// Create the block, it will call itself, so
// you need to separate the declaration and
// the assignment.
// Async so you can wait easily when the
// delay comes.
block = new ActionBlock<DateTimeOffset>(async now => {
// Perform the action. Wait on the result.
await action(now, cancellationToken).
// Doing this here because synchronization context more than
// likely *doesn't* need to be captured for the continuation
// here. As a matter of fact, that would be downright
// dangerous.
ConfigureAwait(false);
// Wait.
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken).
// Same as above.
ConfigureAwait(false);
// Post the action back to the block.
block.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now);
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions {
CancellationToken = cancellationToken
});
// Return the block.
return block;
}
Of course, it would be good practice to weave the CancellationToken through to your method (if it accepts one), which is done here.
That means you would then have a DoWorkAsync method with the following signature:
Task DoWorkAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
You'd have to change (only slightly, and you're not bleeding out separation of concerns here) the StartWork method to account for the new signature passed to the CreateNeverEndingTask method, like so:
void StartWork()
{
// Create the token source.
wtoken = new CancellationTokenSource();
// Set the task.
task = CreateNeverEndingTask((now, ct) => DoWorkAsync(ct), wtoken.Token);
// Start the task. Post the time.
task.Post(DateTimeOffset.Now, wtoken.Token);
}

I find the new Task-based interface to be very simple for doing things like this - even easier than using the Timer class.
There are some small adjustments you can make to your example. Instead of:
task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
wtoken.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DoWork();
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
}, wtoken, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
You can do this:
task = Task.Run(async () => // <- marked async
{
while (true)
{
DoWork();
await Task.Delay(10000, wtoken.Token); // <- await with cancellation
}
}, wtoken.Token);
This way the cancellation will happen instantaneously if inside the Task.Delay, rather than having to wait for the Thread.Sleep to finish.
Also, using Task.Delay over Thread.Sleep means you aren't tying up a thread doing nothing for the duration of the sleep.
If you're able, you can also make DoWork() accept a cancellation token, and the cancellation will be much more responsive.

Here is what I came up with:
Inherit from NeverEndingTask and override the ExecutionCore method with the work you want to do.
Changing ExecutionLoopDelayMs allows you to adjust the time between loops e.g. if you wanted to use a backoff algorithm.
Start/Stop provide a synchronous interface to start/stop task.
LongRunning means you will get one dedicated thread per NeverEndingTask.
This class does not allocate memory in a loop unlike the ActionBlock based solution above.
The code below is sketch, not necessarily production code :)
:
public abstract class NeverEndingTask
{
// Using a CTS allows NeverEndingTask to "cancel itself"
private readonly CancellationTokenSource _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
protected NeverEndingTask()
{
TheNeverEndingTask = new Task(
() =>
{
// Wait to see if we get cancelled...
while (!_cts.Token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(ExecutionLoopDelayMs))
{
// Otherwise execute our code...
ExecutionCore(_cts.Token);
}
// If we were cancelled, use the idiomatic way to terminate task
_cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
},
_cts.Token,
TaskCreationOptions.DenyChildAttach | TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
// Do not forget to observe faulted tasks - for NeverEndingTask faults are probably never desirable
TheNeverEndingTask.ContinueWith(x =>
{
Trace.TraceError(x.Exception.InnerException.Message);
// Log/Fire Events etc.
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
protected readonly int ExecutionLoopDelayMs = 0;
protected Task TheNeverEndingTask;
public void Start()
{
// Should throw if you try to start twice...
TheNeverEndingTask.Start();
}
protected abstract void ExecutionCore(CancellationToken cancellationToken);
public void Stop()
{
// This code should be reentrant...
_cts.Cancel();
TheNeverEndingTask.Wait();
}
}

.NET Framework 4.0: Chaining tasks in a loop

I want to chain multiple Tasks, so that when one ends the next one starts. I know I can do this using ContinueWith. But what if I have a large number of tasks, so that:
t1 continues with t2
t2 continues with t3
t3 continues with t4
...
Is there a nice way to do it, other than creating this chain manually using a loop?

Well, assuming you have some sort of enumerable of Action delegates or something you want to do, you can easily use LINQ to do the following:
// Create the base task. Run synchronously.
var task = new Task(() => { });
task.RunSynchronously();
// Chain them all together.
var query =
// For each action
from action in actions
// Assign the task to the continuation and
// return that.
select (task = task.ContinueWith(action));
// Get the last task to wait on.
// Note that this cannot be changed to "Last"
// because the actions enumeration could have no
// elements, meaning that Last would throw.
// That means task can be null, so a check
// would have to be performed on it before
// waiting on it (unless you are assured that
// there are items in the action enumeration).
task = query.LastOrDefault();
The above code is really your loop, just in a fancier form. It does the same thing in that it takes the previous task (after primed with a dummy "noop" Task) and then adds a continuation in the form of ContinueWith (assigning the continuation to the current task in the process for the next iteration of the loop, which is performed when LastOrDefault is called).

You may use static extensions ContinueWhenAll here.
So you can pass multiple tasks.
Update
You can use a chaining extension such as this:
public static class MyTaskExtensions
{
public static Task BuildChain(this Task task,
IEnumerable<Action<Task>> actions)
{
if (!actions.Any())
return task;
else
{
Task continueWith = task.ContinueWith(actions.First());
return continueWith.BuildChain(actions.Skip(1));
}
}
}