Develop Reference

Executing multiple tasks asynchronously in C#

Environment
Windows 7
Visual Studio
C#
What I'm trying to do
I'm trying to build an app to evaluate company products. For security, the description below is made abstract to some extent.
What this app does is changing a certain parameter in the product and see how a certain value of the product changes. So I need to do two things.
Change the parameter at a certain interval
Display the value in a textbox at a certain interval
The diagram is like this.
These tasks should be repeated until a cancel button is pressed.
The UI has these controls:
button1 : start button
button2 : cancel button
textbox1 : to show values obtained from the device
So here is the code I wrote.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Task1();
await Task2();
}
private async Task Task1()
{
while (!cts.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
ChangeParameter(0);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
ChangeParameter(10);
Thread.Sleep(500);
ChangeParameter(0);
}
}
private void ChangeParameter(double param)
{
// change device paremeter
Console.WriteLine("devicep parameter changed : " + param);
}
private async Task Task2()
{
while (!cts.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
int data = GetDataFromDevice();
UpdateTextBoxWithData(data);
}
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
private int GetDataFromDevice()
{
//pseudo code
var rnd = new Random();
return rnd.Next(100);
}
private void UpdateTextBoxWithData(int data)
{
textBox1.AppendText(data.ToString() + "\n");
// debug
Console.WriteLine("data : " + data);
}
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
cts.Cancel();
}
}
Issues
However, there are two issues in this code.
UI freezes.
Task2 is never executed.
The second issue is derived from await since it executes tasks one by one. I could have used Task.Run() but this doesn't allow adding values to textBox since it's different from the UI thread.
How can I solve these issues? Any help would be appreciated.

First of all, async methods can be illusive as they won't turn your methods magically asynchronous. Instead, you can consider an async method as a setup for a state machine (see a detailed explanation here), where you schedule the chain of operations by the await calls.
For that reason, your async methods must execute as fast as possible. Do not do any blocking operation in such a setup method. If you have a blocking operation, which you want to execute in the async method, schedule it by an await Task.Run(() => MyLongOperation()); call.
So for example this will return immediately:
private async Task Task1()
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
while (!cts.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
ChangeParameter(0);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
ChangeParameter(10);
Thread.Sleep(500);
ChangeParameter(0);
}
}
}
A small remark: others may suggest to use Task.Delay instead of Thread.Sleep. I would say that use Task.Delay only if it is the part of the configuration of your state machine. But if the delay is intended to be used as a part of the long-lasting operation, which you don't want to split up, you can simply stay at the Thread.Sleep.
Finally, a remark for this part:
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Task1();
await Task2();
}
This configures your tasks to be executed after each other. If you want to execute them parallel, do it like this:
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Task t1 = Task1();
Task t2 = Task2();
await Task.WhenAll(new[] { t1, t2 });
}
Edit: An extra note for long-lasting tasks: By default, Task.Run executes the tasks on pool threads. Scheduling too many parallel and long lasting tasks might cause starvation and the whole application may freeze for long seconds. So for long-lasting operation you might want to use Task.Factory.StartNew with TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning option instead of Task.Run.
// await Task.Run(() => LooongOperation(), token);
await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => LooongOperation(), token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default);

The problem is you not using await in your tasks so they executing synchronously.
You should use something like this to maintain your UI responsive (NOTE this is not production code, I'm just showing an idea):
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
await Task.WhenAll(Task1(cts.Token), Task2(cts.Token));
}
catch (TaskCancelledException ex)
{
}
}
private async Task Task1(CancellationToken token)
{
while (true)
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
await Task.Delay(500, token); // pass token to ensure delay canceled exactly when cancel is pressed
ChangeParameter(0);
await Task.Delay(1000, token);
ChangeParameter(10);
await Task.Delay(500, token);
ChangeParameter(0);
}
}
private async Task Task2(CancellationToken token)
{
while (true)
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
await Task.Delay(100, token);
int data = await Task.Run(() => GetDataFromDevice()); //assuming this could be long running operation it shouldn't be on ui thread
UpdateTextBoxWithData(data);
}
}
Basically, when you need to run something on background you should wrap that in Task.Run() and then await for result. Simply adding async to your method won't make this method asynchronous.
To make your code clearer, I suggest you to move methods like GetDataFromDevice or ChangeParameter to services layer. Also, take a look at IProgress as comments suggests to update your UI according to progress of some process.

There are many issues with this code:
async/await doesn't make the code asynchronous automagically. It allows you to await the results of already asynchronous operations. If you want to run something in the background that isn't already asynchronous, you need to use Task.Run or a similar method to start a Task.
await returns execution to the original synchronization context. In this case, the UI thread. By using Thread.Sleep, you are freezing the UI thread
You can't update the UI from another thread and that goes for Tasks too. You can use the IProgress interface though to report progress. A lot of BCL classes use this interface, just like CancellationToken
Maxim Kosov already cleaned up the code and shows how to properly use async/await and Task.Run, so I'll just post how to use IProgress< T> and its impelementation, Progress< T>
IProgress is used to publich a progress update with the IProgress< T>.Report method. Its default implementation, Progress, raises the ProgressChanged event and/or calls the Action<T> passed to its constructor, on the UI thread. Specifically, on the synchronization context captured when the class was created.
You can create a progress object in your constructor or your button click event, eg
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var progress=new Progress<int>(data=>UpdateTextBoxWithData(data));
//...
//Allow for cancellation of the task itself
var token=cts.Token;
await Task.Run(()=>MeasureInBackground(token,progress),token);
}
private async Task MeasureInBackground(CancellationToken token,IProgress<int> progress)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await Task.Delay(100,token);
int data = GetDataFromDevice();
progress.Report(data);
}
}
Note that using Thread.Sleep inside a task is not a good idea because it wastes a threadpool thread doing nothing. It's better to use await Task.Delay() which requires that the signature of the method change to async Task. There is a Task.Run(Func) overload just for this purpose.
The method is a bit different from Maxim Kosov's code to show that IProgress really communicates across threads. IProgress can handle complex classes, so you could return both a progress percentage and a message, eg:
private async Task MeasureInBackground(CancellationToken token,IProgress<Tuple<int,string>> progress)
{
while(!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await Task.Delay(100,token);
int data = GetDataFromDevice();
progress.Report(Tuple.Create(data,"Working"));
}
progress.Report(Tuple.Create(-1,"Cancelled!"));
}
Here I'm just being lazy and return a Tuple<int,string>. A specialized progress class would be more appropriate in production code.
The advantage of using an Action is that you don't need to manage event handlers and the objects are local to the async method. Cleanup is performed by .NET itself.
If your device API provides truly asynchronous calls, you don't need Task.Run. This means that you don't have to waste a Task in a tigh loop, eg:
private async Task MeasureInBackground(CancellationToken token,IProgress<Tuple<int,string>> progress)
{
while(!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await Task.Delay(100, token);
int data = await GetDataFromDeviceAsync();
progress.Report(Tuple.Create(data,"Working"));
}
progress.Report(Tuple.Create(-1,"Cancelled!"));
}
Most drivers perform IO tasks using an OS feature called completion ports, essentially callbacks that are called when the driver completes an operation. This way they don't need to block while waiting for a network, database or file system response.
EDIT
In the last example, Task.Run is no longer needed. Just using await would be enough:
await MeasureInBackground(token,progress);

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

Calling TaskCompletionSource.SetResult in a non blocking manner

I've discovered that TaskCompletionSource.SetResult(); invokes the code awaiting the task before returning. In my case that result in a deadlock.
This is a simplified version that is started in an ordinary Thread
void ReceiverRun()
while (true)
{
var msg = ReadNextMessage();
TaskCompletionSource<Response> task = requests[msg.RequestID];
if(msg.Error == null)
task.SetResult(msg);
else
task.SetException(new Exception(msg.Error));
}
}
The "async" part of the code looks something like this.
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait();
The Wait is actually nested inside non-async calls.
The SendAwaitResponse(simplified)
public static Task<Response> SendAwaitResponse(string msg)
{
var t = new TaskCompletionSource<Response>();
requests.Add(GetID(msg), t);
stream.Write(msg);
return t.Task;
}
My assumption was that the second SendAwaitResponse would execute in a ThreadPool thread but it continues in the thread created for ReceiverRun.
Is there anyway to set the result of a task without continuing its awaited code?
The application is a console application.

I've discovered that TaskCompletionSource.SetResult(); invokes the code awaiting the task before returning. In my case that result in a deadlock.
Yes, I have a blog post documenting this (AFAIK it's not documented on MSDN). The deadlock happens because of two things:
There's a mixture of async and blocking code (i.e., an async method is calling Wait).
Task continuations are scheduled using TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously.
I recommend starting with the simplest possible solution: removing the first thing (1). I.e., don't mix async and Wait calls:
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait();
Instead, use await consistently:
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
await SendAwaitResponse("second message");
If you need to, you can Wait at an alternative point further up the call stack (not in an async method).
That's my most-recommended solution. However, if you want to try removing the second thing (2), you can do a couple of tricks: either wrap the SetResult in a Task.Run to force it onto a separate thread (my AsyncEx library has *WithBackgroundContinuations extension methods that do exactly this), or give your thread an actual context (such as my AsyncContext type) and specify ConfigureAwait(false), which will cause the continuation to ignore the ExecuteSynchronously flag.
But those solutions are much more complex than just separating the async and blocking code.
As a side note, take a look at TPL Dataflow; it sounds like you may find it useful.

As your app is a console app, it runs on the default synchronization context, where the await continuation callback will be called on the same thread the awaiting task has become completed on. If you want to switch threads after await SendAwaitResponse, you can do so with await Task.Yield():
await SendAwaitResponse("first message");
await Task.Yield();
// will be continued on a pool thread
// ...
SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait(); // so no deadlock
You could further improve this by storing Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId inside Task.Result and comparing it to the current thread's id after the await. If you're still on the same thread, do await Task.Yield().
While I understand that SendAwaitResponse is a simplified version of your actual code, it's still completely synchronous inside (the way you showed it in your question). Why would you expect any thread switch in there?
Anyway, you probably should redesign your logic the way it doesn't make assumptions about what thread you are currently on. Avoid mixing await and Task.Wait() and make all of your code asynchronous. Usually, it's possible to stick with just one Wait() somewhere on the top level (e.g. inside Main).
[EDITED] Calling task.SetResult(msg) from ReceiverRun actually transfers the control flow to the point where you await on the task - without a thread switch, because of the default synchronization context's behavior. So, your code which does the actual message processing is taking over the ReceiverRun thread. Eventually, SendAwaitResponse("second message").Wait() is called on the same thread, causing the deadlock.
Below is a console app code, modeled after your sample. It uses await Task.Yield() inside ProcessAsync to schedule the continuation on a separate thread, so the control flow returns to ReceiverRun and there's no deadlock.
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication
{
class Program
{
class Worker
{
public struct Response
{
public string message;
public int threadId;
}
CancellationToken _token;
readonly ConcurrentQueue<string> _messages = new ConcurrentQueue<string>();
readonly ConcurrentDictionary<string, TaskCompletionSource<Response>> _requests = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, TaskCompletionSource<Response>>();
public Worker(CancellationToken token)
{
_token = token;
}
string ReadNextMessage()
{
// using Thread.Sleep(100) for test purposes here,
// should be using ManualResetEvent (or similar synchronization primitive),
// depending on how messages arrive
string message;
while (!_messages.TryDequeue(out message))
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
_token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
return message;
}
public void ReceiverRun()
{
LogThread("Enter ReceiverRun");
while (true)
{
var msg = ReadNextMessage();
LogThread("ReadNextMessage: " + msg);
var tcs = _requests[msg];
tcs.SetResult(new Response { message = msg, threadId = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId });
_token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); // this is how we terminate the loop
}
}
Task<Response> SendAwaitResponse(string msg)
{
LogThread("SendAwaitResponse: " + msg);
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<Response>();
_requests.TryAdd(msg, tcs);
_messages.Enqueue(msg);
return tcs.Task;
}
public async Task ProcessAsync()
{
LogThread("Enter Worker.ProcessAsync");
var task1 = SendAwaitResponse("first message");
await task1;
LogThread("result1: " + task1.Result.message);
// avoid deadlock for task2.Wait() with Task.Yield()
// comment this out and task2.Wait() will dead-lock
if (task1.Result.threadId == Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)
await Task.Yield();
var task2 = SendAwaitResponse("second message");
task2.Wait();
LogThread("result2: " + task2.Result.message);
var task3 = SendAwaitResponse("third message");
// still on the same thread as with result 2, no deadlock for task3.Wait()
task3.Wait();
LogThread("result3: " + task3.Result.message);
var task4 = SendAwaitResponse("fourth message");
await task4;
LogThread("result4: " + task4.Result.message);
// avoid deadlock for task5.Wait() with Task.Yield()
// comment this out and task5.Wait() will dead-lock
if (task4.Result.threadId == Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)
await Task.Yield();
var task5 = SendAwaitResponse("fifth message");
task5.Wait();
LogThread("result5: " + task5.Result.message);
LogThread("Leave Worker.ProcessAsync");
}
public static void LogThread(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}, thread: {1}", message, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Worker.LogThread("Enter Main");
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(5000); // cancel after 5s
var worker = new Worker(cts.Token);
Task receiver = Task.Run(() => worker.ReceiverRun());
Task main = worker.ProcessAsync();
try
{
Task.WaitAll(main, receiver);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Exception: " + e.Message);
}
Worker.LogThread("Leave Main");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
This is not much different from doing Task.Run(() => task.SetResult(msg)) inside ReceiverRun. The only advantage I can think of is that you have an explicit control over when to switch threads. This way, you can stay on the same thread for as long as possible (e.g., for task2, task3, task4, but you still need another thread switch after task4 to avoid a deadlock on task5.Wait()).
Both solutions would eventually make the thread pool grow, which is bad in terms of performance and scalability.
Now, if we replace task.Wait() with await task everywhere inside ProcessAsync in the above code, we will not have to use await Task.Yield and there still will be no deadlocks. However, the whole chain of await calls after the 1st await task1 inside ProcessAsync will actually be executed on the ReceiverRun thread. As long as we don't block this thread with other Wait()-style calls and don't do a lot of CPU-bound work as we're processing messages, this approach might work OK (asynchronous IO-bound await-style calls still should be OK, and they may actually trigger an implicit thread switch).
That said, I think you'd need a separate thread with a serializing synchronization context installed on it for processing messages (similar to WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext). That's where your asynchronous code containing awaits should run. You'd still need to avoid using Task.Wait on that thread. And if an individual message processing takes a lot of CPU-bound work, you should use Task.Run for such work. For async IO-bound calls, you could stay on the same thread.
You may want to look at ActionDispatcher/ActionDispatcherSynchronizationContext from #StephenCleary's
Nito Asynchronous Library for your asynchronous message processing logic. Hopefully, Stephen jumps in and provides a better answer.

"My assumption was that the second SendAwaitResponse would execute in a ThreadPool thread but it continues in the thread created for ReceiverRun."
It depends entirely on what you do within SendAwaitResponse. Asynchrony and concurrency are not the same thing.
Check out: C# 5 Async/Await - is it *concurrent*?

A little late to the party, but here's my solution which i think is added value.
I've been struggling with this also, i've solved it by capturing the SynchronizationContext on the method that is awaited.
It would look something like:
// just a default sync context
private readonly SynchronizationContext _defaultContext = new SynchronizationContext();
void ReceiverRun()
{
while (true) // <-- i would replace this with a cancellation token
{
var msg = ReadNextMessage();
TaskWithContext<TResult> task = requests[msg.RequestID];
// if it wasn't a winforms/wpf thread, it would be null
// we choose our default context (threadpool)
var context = task.Context ?? _defaultContext;
// execute it on the context which was captured where it was added. So it won't get completed on this thread.
context.Post(state =>
{
if (msg.Error == null)
task.TaskCompletionSource.SetResult(msg);
else
task.TaskCompletionSource.SetException(new Exception(msg.Error));
});
}
}
public static Task<Response> SendAwaitResponse(string msg)
{
// The key is here! Save the current synchronization context.
var t = new TaskWithContext<Response>(SynchronizationContext.Current);
requests.Add(GetID(msg), t);
stream.Write(msg);
return t.TaskCompletionSource.Task;
}
// class to hold a task and context
public class TaskWithContext<TResult>
{
public SynchronizationContext Context { get; }
public TaskCompletionSource<TResult> TaskCompletionSource { get; } = new TaskCompletionSource<Response>();
public TaskWithContext(SynchronizationContext context)
{
Context = context;
}
}

RunAsync - How do I await the completion of work on the UI thread?

When awaiting Dispatcher.RunAsync the continuation occurs when the work is scheduled, not when the work has completed. How can I await the work completing?
Edit
My original question assumed the premature continuation was caused by the design of the API, so here's the real question.
When awaiting Dispatcher.RunAsync using an asynchronous delegate, using await within the delegate's code, the continuation occurs when the await is encountered, not when the work has completed. How can I await the work completing?
Edit 2
One reason you may need to dispatch work that's already on the UI thread is to workaround subtle timing and layout issues. It's quite common for values of sizes and positions of elements in the visual tree to be in flux and scheduling work for a later iteration of the UI can help.

I found the following suggestion on a Microsoft github repository: How to await a UI task sent from a background thread.
Setup
Define this extension method for the CoreDispatcher:
using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using Windows.UI.Core;
public static class DispatcherTaskExtensions
{
public static async Task<T> RunTaskAsync<T>(this CoreDispatcher dispatcher,
Func<Task<T>> func, CoreDispatcherPriority priority = CoreDispatcherPriority.Normal)
{
var taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<T>();
await dispatcher.RunAsync(priority, async () =>
{
try
{
taskCompletionSource.SetResult(await func());
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
taskCompletionSource.SetException(ex);
}
});
return await taskCompletionSource.Task;
}
// There is no TaskCompletionSource<void> so we use a bool that we throw away.
public static async Task RunTaskAsync(this CoreDispatcher dispatcher,
Func<Task> func, CoreDispatcherPriority priority = CoreDispatcherPriority.Normal) =>
await RunTaskAsync(dispatcher, async () => { await func(); return false; }, priority);
}
Once you do that, all you need to do is use the new RunTaskAsync method to have your background task await on the UI work.
Usage example
Let's pretend that this is the method that needs to run in the UI thread. Pay attention to the debug statements, which will help follow the flow:
public static async Task<string> ShowMessageAsync()
{
// Set up a MessageDialog
var popup = new Windows.UI.Popups.MessageDialog("Question", "Please pick a button to continue");
popup.Commands.Add(new Windows.UI.Popups.UICommand("Button 1"));
popup.Commands.Add(new Windows.UI.Popups.UICommand("Button 2"));
popup.CancelCommandIndex = 0;
// About to show the dialog
Debug.WriteLine("Waiting for user choice...");
var command = await popup.ShowAsync();
// Dialog has been dismissed by the user
Debug.WriteLine("User has made a choice. Returning result.");
return command.Label;
}
To await that from your background thread, this is how you would use RunTaskAsync:
// Background thread calls this method
public async void Object_Callback()
{
Debug.WriteLine("Object_Callback() has been called.");
// Do the UI work, and await for it to complete before continuing execution
var buttonLabel = await Dispatcher.RunTaskAsync(ShowMessageAsync);
Debug.WriteLine($"Object_Callback() is running again. User clicked {buttonLabel}.");
}
The output then looks like this:
Object_Callback() has been called.
Waiting for user choice...
User has made a choice. Returning result.
Object_Callback() is running again. User clicked Button 1.

Your question is assuming that you want to schedule (and wait for) work on a UI thread from a background thread.
You'll usually find your code is much cleaner and easier to understand (and it will definitely be more portable) if you have the UI be the "master" and the background threads be the "slaves".
So, instead of having a background thread await some operation for the UI thread to do (using the awkward and unportable Dispatcher.RunAsync), you'll have the UI thread await some operation for the background thread to do (using the portable, made-for-async Task.Run).

You can wrap the call to RunAsync in your own asynchronous method that can be awaited and control the completion of the task and thus the continuation of awaiting callers yourself.
Since async-await is centred on the Task type, you must orchestrate the work using this type. However, usually a Task schedules itself to run on a threadpool thread and so it cannot be used to schedule UI work.
However, the TaskCompletionSource type was invented to act as a kind of puppeteer to an unscheduled Task. In other words, a TaskCompletionSource can create a dummy Task that is not scheduled to do anything, but via methods on the TaskCompletionSource can appear to be running and completing like a normal job.
See this example.
public Task PlayDemoAsync()
{
var completionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
this.Dispatcher.RunAsync(Windows.UI.Core.CoreDispatcherPriority.Normal, async () =>
{
try
{
foreach (var ppc in this.Plots.Select(p => this.TransformPlot(p, this.RenderSize)))
{
// For each subsequent stroke plot, we need to start a new figure.
//
if (this.Sketch.DrawingPoints.Any())
this.Sketch.StartNewFigure(ppc.First().Position);
foreach (var point in ppc)
{
await Task.Delay(100);
this.Sketch.DrawingPoints.Add(point.Position);
}
}
completionSource.SetResult(true);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
completionSource.SetException(e);
}
});
return (Task)completionSource.Task;
}
Note: the main work being done on the UI thread is just some lines being drawn on screen every 100ms.
A TaskCompletionSource is created as the puppet master. Look near the end and you'll see that it has a Task property that is returned to the caller. Returning Task satisfies the compilers needs and makes the method awaitable and asynchronous.
However, the Task is just a puppet, a proxy for the actual work going on in the UI thread.
See how in that main UI delegate I use the TaskCompletionSource.SetResult method to force a result into the Task (since returned to the caller) and communicate that work has finished.
If there's an error, I use SetException to 'pull another string' and make it appear that an exception has bubbled-up in the puppet Task.
The async-await subsystem knows no different and so it works as you'd expect.
Edit
As prompted by svick, if the method was designed to be callable only from the UI thread, then this would suffice:
/// <summary>
/// Begins a demonstration drawing of the asterism.
/// </summary>
public async Task PlayDemoAsync()
{
if (this.Sketch != null)
{
foreach (var ppc in this.Plots.Select(p => this.TransformPlot(p, this.RenderSize)))
{
// For each subsequent stroke plot, we need to start a new figure.
//
if (this.Sketch.DrawingPoints.Any())
this.Sketch.StartNewFigure(ppc.First().Position);
foreach (var point in ppc)
{
await Task.Delay(100);
this.Sketch.DrawingPoints.Add(point.Position);
}
}
}
}

A nice way to work the clean way #StephenCleary suggests even if you have to start from a worker thread for some reason, is to use a simple helper object. With the object below you can write code like this:
await DispatchToUIThread.Awaiter;
// Now you're running on the UI thread, so this code is safe:
this.textBox.Text = text;
In your App.OnLaunched you have to initialize the object:
DispatchToUIThread.Initialize(rootFrame.Dispatcher);
The theory behind the code below you can find at await anything;
public class DispatchToUIThread : INotifyCompletion
{
private readonly CoreDispatcher dispatcher;
public static DispatchToUIThread Awaiter { get; private set; }
private DispatchToUIThread(CoreDispatcher dispatcher)
{
this.dispatcher = dispatcher;
}
[CLSCompliant(false)]
public static void Initialize(CoreDispatcher dispatcher)
{
if (dispatcher == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dispatcher");
Awaiter = new DispatchToUIThread(dispatcher);
}
public DispatchToUIThread GetAwaiter()
{
return this;
}
public bool IsCompleted
{
get { return this.dispatcher.HasThreadAccess; }
}
public async void OnCompleted(Action continuation)
{
if (continuation == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("continuation");
await this.dispatcher.RunAsync(CoreDispatcherPriority.Normal, () => continuation());
}
public void GetResult() { }
}

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.