Develop Reference

GetContextAsync() with Cancellation Support

So I'm spinning up a HttpListener to wait for an OAuth2 response. In an ideal world, this is only going to be alive for a few seconds while the user logs in in the browser and we get posted the token.
I'd also like for this to have a CancellationToken so that the user can stop listening after a delay should they so wish.
My initial idea was to use something along the lines of:
_listener.Start();
Task<HttpListenerContext> t = _listener.GetContextAsync();
while (!cancelled.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (t.IsCompleted)
{
break;
}
await Task.Run(() => Thread.Sleep(100));
}
HttpListenerContext ctx = t.Result;
//...
_listener.Stop();
But that doesn't sit right with me for so many reasons (weird async usage, polling, etc.).
So then I thought I might be able to use the synchronous version _listener.GetContext() in conjunction with Task.Run(func<T>, CancellationToken):
_listener.Start()
HttpListenerContext ctx = await Task.Run(() => _listener.GetContext(), cancelled);
//...
_listener.Stop();
This is a little better, the code's at least tidier, although it seems hacky using a synchronous version of the method asynchronously with a Task...
However this doesn't behave how I'd expect (aborting the running task when the token is cancelled).
This strikes me as something that really ought to be fairly simple to do so I assume I'm missing something.
So my question is thus... How do I listen asynchronously with a HttpListener in a cancellable fashion?

Because the GetContextAsync method does not support cancellation, it basically means that it is unlikely you can cancel the actual IO operation, yet unlikely to cancel the Task returned by the method, until you Abort or Stop the HttpListener. So the main focus here is always a hack that returns the control flow to your code.
While both the answers from #guru-stron and #peter-csala should do the trick, I just wanted to share another way without having to use Task.WhenAny.
You could wrap the task with a TaskCompletionSource like this:
public static class TaskExtensions
{
public static Task<T> AsCancellable<T>(this Task<T> task, CancellationToken token)
{
if (!token.CanBeCanceled)
{
return task;
}
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<T>();
// This cancels the returned task:
// 1. If the token has been canceled, it cancels the TCS straightaway
// 2. Otherwise, it attempts to cancel the TCS whenever
// the token indicates cancelled
token.Register(() => tcs.TrySetCanceled(token),
useSynchronizationContext: false);
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// Complete the TCS per task status
// If the TCS has been cancelled, this continuation does nothing
if (task.IsCanceled)
{
tcs.TrySetCanceled();
}
else if (task.IsFaulted)
{
tcs.TrySetException(t.Exception);
}
else
{
tcs.TrySetResult(t.Result);
}
},
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously,
TaskScheduler.Default);
return tcs.Task;
}
}
And flow the control like this:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
cts.CancelAfter(3000);
try
{
var context = await listener.GetContextAsync().AsCancellable(cts.Token);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException)
{
// ...
}

I would suggest creating cancelable infinite task (Task.Delay(Timeout.Infinite, token) for example) and use Task.WhenAny. Something like that:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(); // token source controled by consumer "outside"
var token = cts.Token;
var httpListener = new HttpListener();
httpListener.Start();
var t = httpListener.GetContextAsync();
// to cancel the infinite delay task if listener finishes first
var localCts = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(token);
var completed = await Task.WhenAny(t, Task.Delay(Timeout.Infinite, localCts.Token));
if (completed == t) // check that completed task is one from listener
{
localCts.Cancel(); // cancel the infinite task
HttpListenerContext ctx = t.Result;
//...
}
httpListener.Stop();

Here is yet another solution:
var cancellationSignal = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
var contextTask = _listener.GetContextAsync();
using (cancelled.Register(state => ((TaskCompletionSource<object>)state).TrySetResult(null), cancellationSignal))
{
if (contextTask != await Task.WhenAny(contextTask, cancellationSignal.Task).ConfigureAwait(false))
break; //task is cancelled
}
Because we can't await the CancellationToken that's why have to apply the following trick
The CancellationToken does expose a Register method, where we can define a callback which will be called whenever the cancellation occurs
Here we can provide a delegate which sets an awaitable to completed
So, we can await that task
In order to create a Task which is set to completed whenever the cancellation occurs I've used TaskCompletionSource. You could also use SemaphoreSlim or any other signalling object which has async wait, like AsyncManualResetEvent.
So, we pass the cancellationSignal to the Register as a state parameter
Inside the delegate we have to cast it back to TCS to be able to call the TrySetResult on it
Inside the using block we await a Task.WhenAny
It will return that Task which finishes first
If that Task is the cancellation then we can break / return / throw ...
If that Task is the contextTask then we can continue the normal flow

How to determine CancellationTokenSource scope?

Instead of using conventional threading, I am using async/await to implement a long-running job that will be called from various scenarios such as Desktop/Web/Mobile.
This question is about design considerations when using CancellationTokenSource/CancellationToken objects. Consider the following code written in .NET Core 5:
System
System.Collections.Generic
System.Diagnostics
System.IO
System.Threading
System.Threading.Tasks
[STAThread]
private static async Task Main ()
{
using (var job = new Job())
//using (var source = new CancellationTokenSource())
{
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
job.OnJobProgress += (sender, e) => { Console.WriteLine (watch.Elapsed); };
Task.Run (async () => await job.StartAsync());
//Task.Run (async () => await job.StartAsync (source.Token));
do
{
await Task.Delay (100);
if ((Console.KeyAvailable) && (Console.ReadKey ().Key == ConsoleKey.Escape))
{
//source.Cancel();
await job.CancelAsync();
break;
}
}
while (job.Running);
}
}
public class Job : IDisposable
{
public EventHandler OnJobProgress;
private bool _Running = false;
private readonly object SyncRoot = new object();
private CancellationTokenSource CancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
public bool Running => this._Running;
public async Task StartAsync () => await this.StartAsync(CancellationToken.None);
public async Task StartAsync (CancellationToken cancellationToken) => await this.ProcessAsync(cancellationToken);
public void Cancel ()
{
this.CancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
do { Thread.Sleep (10); } while (this._Running);
}
public async Task CancelAsync ()
{
this.CancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
do { await Task.Delay (10); } while (this._Running);
}
private async Task ProcessAsync (CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
lock (this.SyncRoot)
{
if (this._Running) { return; }
else { this._Running = true; }
}
do
{
await Task.Delay (100);
this.OnJobProgress?.Invoke (this, new EventArgs());
}
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested);
lock (this.SyncRoot)
{
this._Running = false;
this.CancellationTokenSource?.Dispose();
this.CancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
}
}
public void Dispose () => this.Cancel();
}
Notice the three commented lines in the Main method as well as the Cancel and CancelAsync methods. My gut says that there should be a locking mechanism in place in the Cancel methods instead of the Process method. Depending on where the CancellationToken comes from, are there any potential deadlocks in this implementation? Somehow, I am not comfortable with the do/while blocking mechanism.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
AUXILIARY QUESTION: Since CancellationToken is a readonly struct and being passed around by value, how is it that calling Cancel on the CancellationTokenSource modifies the CancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested property? Perhaps that was the source of confusion all along.

This is a job for Task.WhenAny. Await the first job to complete from two: either the one you want to really want to complete or the one representing user's impatience by hitting the ESC key or appropriate mobile touch.
Pseudocode:
mainTask = Setup main task, take the token as input. That's it.
userInterruptTask = Setup user action monitoring task, and in it's continuation or as part of its natural loop's time to end (the ESC key), call Cancel. Note, in this loop, there is NO check against a boolean value; it just goes until it must cancel, and then is done via break/return; the other task goes to done if it is properly listening for cancellation.
So, when either task completes, you're done.
var ret = await Task.WhenAny(mainTask, userInterruptTask);
If it matters at this point, get the value of ret and act accordingly. Task.WhenAny returns
A task that represents the completion of one of the supplied tasks. The return task's Result is the task that completed.
For a specific answer to "what is the scope" of the token... its scope is everything that may act on it. Cancellation in TPL is 100% cooperative, so all tasks that care to set cancellation or look for cancellation are in play.
For your auxiliary question, I can understand your confusion. I hadn't thought of it before, myself, but the answer turns out to be simple. The implementation of that property delegates to the token source:
public bool IsCancellationRequested
=> _source != null && _source.IsCancellationRequested;
where the CancellationTokenSource is a stateful class.

Switch new Task(()=>{ }) for Func<Task>

In an answer to one of my other questions, I was told that use of new Task(() => { }) is not something that is a normal use case. I was advised to use Func<Task> instead. I have tried to make that work, but I can't seem to figure it out. (Rather than drag it out in the comments, I am asking a separate question here.)
My specific scenario is that I need the Task to not start right when it is declared and to be able to wait for it later.
Here is a LinqPad example using new Task(() => { }). NOTE: This works perfectly! (Except that it uses new Task.)
static async void Main(string[] args)
{
// Line that I need to swap to a Func<Task> somehow.
// note that this is "cold" not started task
Task startupDone = new Task(() => { });
var runTask = DoStuff(() =>
{
//+++ This is where we want to task to "start"
startupDone.Start();
});
//+++ Here we wait for the task to possibly start and finish. Or timeout.
// Note that this times out at 1000ms even if "blocking = 10000" below.
var didStartup = startupDone.Wait(1000);
Console.WriteLine(!didStartup ? "Startup Timed Out" : "Startup Finished");
await runTask;
Console.Read();
}
public static async Task DoStuff(Action action)
{
// Swap to 1000 to simulate starting up blocking
var blocking = 1; //1000;
await Task.Delay(500 + blocking);
action();
// Do the rest of the stuff...
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
I tried swapping the second line with:
Func<Task> startupDone = new Func<Task>(async () => { });
But then the lines below the comments with +++ in them don't work right.
I swapped the startupDone.Start() with startupDone.Invoke().
But startupDone.Wait needs the task. Which is only returned in the lambda. I am not sure how to get access to the task outside the lambda so I can Wait for it.
How can use a Func<Task> and start it in one part of my code and do a Wait for it in another part of my code? (Like I can with new Task(() => { })).

The code you posted cannot be refactored to make use of a Func<Task> instead of a cold task, because the method that needs to await the task (the Main method) is not the same method that controls the creation/starting of the task (the lambda parameter of the DoStuff method). This could make the use of the Task constructor legitimate in this case, depending on whether the design decision to delegate the starting of the task to a lambda is justified. In this particular example the startupDone is used as a synchronization primitive, to signal that a condition has been met and the program can continue. This could be achieved equally well by using a specialized synchronization primitive, like for example a SemaphoreSlim:
static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
var startupSemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(0);
Task runTask = RunAsync(startupSemaphore);
bool startupFinished = await startupSemaphore.WaitAsync(1000);
Console.WriteLine(startupFinished ? "Startup Finished" : "Startup Timed Out");
await runTask;
}
public static async Task RunAsync(SemaphoreSlim startupSemaphore)
{
await Task.Delay(500);
startupSemaphore.Release(); // Signal that the startup is done
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
In my opinion using a SemaphoreSlim is more meaningful in this case, and makes the intent of the code clearer. It also allows to await asynchronously the signal with a timeout WaitAsync(Int32), which is not something that you get from a Task out of the box (it is doable though).
Using cold tasks may be tempting in some cases, but when you revisit your code after a month or two you'll find yourself confused, because of how rare and unexpected is to have to deal with tasks that may or may have not been started yet.

I always try my hardest to never have blocking behavior when dealing with anything async or any type that represents potential async behavior such as Task. You can slightly modify your DoStuff to facilitate waiting on your Action.
static async void Main(string[] args)
{
Func<CancellationToken,Task> startupTask = async(token)=>
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting");
await Task.Delay(3000, token);
Console.WriteLine("Completed");
};
using var source = new CancellationTokenSource(2000);
var runTask = DoStuff(() => startupTask(source.Token), source.Token);
var didStartup = await runTask;
Console.WriteLine(!didStartup ? "Startup Timed Out" : "Startup Finished");
Console.Read();
}
public static async Task<bool> DoStuff(Func<Task> action, CancellationToken token)
{
var blocking = 10000;
try
{
await Task.Delay(500 + blocking, token);
await action();
}
catch(TaskCanceledException ex)
{
return false;
}
await Task.Delay(1000);
return true;
}

First, the type of your "do this later" object is going to become Func<Task>. Then, when the task is started (by invoking the function), you get back a Task that represents the operation:
static async void Main(string[] args)
{
Func<Task> startupDoneDelegate = async () => { };
Task startupDoneTask = null;
var runTask = await DoStuff(() =>
{
startupDoneTask = startupDoneDelegate();
});
var didStartup = startupDoneTask.Wait(1000);
Console.WriteLine(!didStartup ? "Startup Timed Out" : "Startup Finished");
}

Async/Await equivalent to .ContinueWith with CancellationToken and TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() scheduler

This is a follow-up to this question.
Question: What would be a succinct way to express the following using async/await instead of .ContinueWith()?:
var task = Task.Run(() => LongRunningAndMightThrow());
m_cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = m_cts.Token;
var uiTaskScheduler = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext();
Task updateUITask = task.ContinueWith(t => UpdateUI(t), ct, TaskContinuationOptions.None, uiTaskScheduler);
I'm mainly interested in the case of a UI SynchronizationContext (e.g. for Winforms)
Note with this that the behavior has all the following desired behaviors:
When the CancellationToken is cancelled, the updateUITask ends up cancelled as soon as possible (i.e. the LongRunningAndMightThrow work may still be going on for quite some time).
The ct CancellationToken gets checked for cancellation on the UI thread prior to running the UpdateUI lambda (see this answer).
The updateUITask will end up cancelled in some cases where the task completed or faulted (since the ct CancellationToken is checked on the UI thread before executing the UpdateUI lambda.
There is no break in flow between the check of the CancellationToken on the UI thread and the running of the UpdateUI lambda. That is, if the CancellationTokenSource is only ever cancelled on the UI thread, then there is no race condition between the checking of the CancellationToken and the running of the UpdateUI lambda--nothing could trigger the CancellationToken in between those two events because the UI thread is not relinquished in between those two events.
Discussion:
One of my main goals in moving this to async/await is to get the UpdateUI work out of a lambda (for ease of readability/debuggability).
#1 above can be addressed by Stephen Toub's WithCancellation task extension method. (which you can feel free to use in the answers).
The other requirements seemed difficult to encapsulate into a helper method without passing UpdateUI as a lambda since I cannot have a break (i.e. an await) between the checking of the CancellationToken and the executing of UpdateUI (because I assume I cannot rely on the implementation detail that await uses ExecuteSynchronously as mentioned here. This is where it seems that having the mythical Task extension method .ConfigureAwait(CancellationToken) that Stephen talks about would be very useful.
I've posted the best answer I have right now, but I'm hoping that someone will come up with something better.
Sample Winforms Application demonstrating the usage:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
CancellationTokenSource m_cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
cancelBtn.Enabled = false;
}
private void cancelBtn_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
m_cts.Cancel();
cancelBtn.Enabled = false;
doWorkBtn.Enabled = true;
}
private Task DoWorkAsync()
{
cancelBtn.Enabled = true;
doWorkBtn.Enabled = false;
var task = Task.Run(() => LongRunningAndMightThrow());
m_cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = m_cts.Token;
var uiTaskScheduler = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext();
Task updateUITask = task.ContinueWith(t => UpdateUI(t), ct, TaskContinuationOptions.None, uiTaskScheduler);
return updateUITask;
}
private async void doWorkBtn_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
await DoWorkAsync();
MessageBox.Show("Completed");
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
MessageBox.Show("Cancelled");
}
catch
{
MessageBox.Show("Faulted");
}
}
private void UpdateUI(Task<bool> t)
{
// We *only* get here when the cancel button was *not* clicked.
cancelBtn.Enabled = false;
doWorkBtn.Enabled = true;
// Update the UI based on the results of the task (completed/failed)
// ...
}
private bool LongRunningAndMightThrow()
{
// Might throw, might complete
// ...
return true;
}
}
Stephen Toub's WithCancellation extension method:
public static async Task<T> WithCancellation<T>(this Task<T> task, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
using(cancellationToken.Register(s => ((TaskCompletionSource<bool>)s).TrySetResult(true), tcs))
if (task != await Task.WhenAny(task, tcs.Task))
throw new OperationCanceledException(cancellationToken);
return await task;
}
Related Links:
Equivalent of ContinueWith(delegate, CancellationToken) with await continuation
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2012/10/05/how-do-i-cancel-non-cancelable-async-operations.aspx
https://stackoverflow.com/a/15673072/495262
https://stackoverflow.com/a/17560746/495262

Writing a WithCancellation method can be done much simpler, in just one line of code:
public static Task WithCancellation(this Task task,
CancellationToken token)
{
return task.ContinueWith(t => t.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), token);
}
public static Task<T> WithCancellation<T>(this Task<T> task,
CancellationToken token)
{
return task.ContinueWith(t => t.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), token);
}
As for the operation you want to do, just using await instead of ContinueWith is just as easy as it sounds; you replace the ContinueWith with an await. Most of the little pieces can be cleaned up a lot though.
m_cts.Cancel();
m_cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var result = await Task.Run(() => LongRunningAndMightThrow())
.WithCancellation(m_cts.Token);
UpdateUI(result);
The changes are not huge, but they're there. You [probably] want to cancel the previous operation when starting a new one. If that requirement doesn't exist, remove the corresponding line. The cancellation logic is all already handled by WithCancellation, there is no need to throw explicitly if cancellation is requested, as that will already happen. There's no real need to store the task, or the cancellation token, as local variables. UpdateUI shouldn't accept a Task<bool>, it should just accept a boolean. The value should be unwrapped from the task before callingUpdateUI.

The following should be equivalent:
var task = Task.Run(() => LongRunningAndMightThrow());
m_cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = m_cts.Token;
try
{
await task.WithCancellation(ct);
}
finally
{
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
UpdateUI(task);
}
Notice that the try/finally is required for the case where the LongRunningAndMightThrow method faults, but by the time we return to the UI thread the CancellationToken has been triggered. Without it the returned outer Task would be faulted where in the original ContinueWith case, it would have been cancelled.

Classic never-ending thread loop using tasks?

Given is a very common threading scenario:
Declaration
private Thread _thread;
private bool _isRunning = false;
Start
_thread = new Thread(() => NeverEndingProc());
thread.Start();
Method
private void NeverEndingProc() {
while(_isRunning) {
do();
}
}
Possibly used in a asynchronous tcp listener that awaits callbacks until it gets stopped by letting the thread run out (_isRunning = false).
Now I'm wondering: Is it possible to do the same thing with Task? Using a CancellationToken? Or are Tasks only for procedures that are expected to end and report status?

You can certainly do this just by passing NeverEndingProc to Task.Run.
However, there is one important difference in functionality: if an exception is propagated out of NeverEndingProc in a bare Thread, it will crash the process. If it is in a Task, it will raise TaskScheduler.UnobservedException and then be silently ignored (as of .NET 4.5).
That said, there are alternatives you can explore. Reactive Extensions, for example, pretty much removes any need for the "infinite thread loop".

One reason to use Task + CancellationToken is to make the individual processes and their cancellation more independent of each other. In your example, notice how NeverEndingProc needs a direct reference to the _isRunning field in the same class. Instead, you could accept an external token:
Start:
public void StartNeverEndingProc(CancellationToken token) {
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => NeverEndingProc(token), token);
}
Method:
private void NeverEndingProc(CancellationToken token) {
while (true) {
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
do();
}
}
Now cancellation is managed by the caller, and can be applied to multiple independent tasks:
var instance = new YourClass();
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
instance.StartNeverEndingProc(cts.Token); // start your task
StartOtherProc(cts.Token); // start another task
cts.Cancel(); // cancel both