Develop Reference

Is there a ContinueWith for ValueTask?

If an API returns a ValueTask or ValueTask<T>, is there a way to perform a ContinueWith on it, like I'm able to do with Task? Is there a Microsoft-provided NuGet library for doing so with .NET Standard 2.0?

Use valueTask.AsTask(). AsTask() is an escape hatch for just such use cases as yours. The purpose of ValueTask is to avoid allocations whenever possible, but if you're going to invoke a continuation on another thread, you will need to allocate something and it might as well be a Task<T>.

Here you are:
public static async ValueTask ContinueWith<TResult>(this ValueTask<TResult> source,
Action<ValueTask<TResult>> continuationAction)
{
// The source task is consumed after the await, and cannot be used further.
ValueTask<TResult> completed;
try
{
completed = new(await source.ConfigureAwait(false));
}
catch (OperationCanceledException oce)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<TResult>();
tcs.SetCanceled(oce.CancellationToken);
completed = new(tcs.Task);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
completed = new(Task.FromException<TResult>(ex));
}
continuationAction(completed);
}
A simpler implementation would be to Preserve the ValueTask<TResult> before the await, and then invoke the continuationAction passing the preserved task as argument. This would cause invariably an allocation though, even in the case of the successful completion of the task.
The reason that I am avoiding the one-line Task.FromCanceled method in the cancellation case, is because this method requires that the supplied CancellationToken is canceled, otherwise it throws an ArgumentOutOfRangeException.

I know I am posting it too late. However wanted to share the approach I used...
ValueTask<T> vt = ValueTaskTReturningMethod();
var awt = vt.GetAwaiter();
awt.OnCompleted(() => {
T val = awt.GetResult();
//code you want to execute after async operation completes
}

How to start an async method without await its completion?

Sometimes I need to start an async job which works very slow. I don't care if that job success and I need to continue working on my current thread.
Like sometimes I need to send an Email or SMS which works very slow. I need to respond to the web client as soon as possible so I don't want to await it.
I have googled this question and some articles suggest me to write like this:
// This method has to be async
public async Task<Response> SomeHTTPAction()
{
// Some logic...
// ...
// Send an Email but don't care if it successfully sent.
Task.Run(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
return MyRespond();
}
Or like this:
// This method has to be async
public async Task<Response> SomeHTTPAction()
{
// Some logic...
// ...
// Send an Email but don't care if it successfully sent.
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
return MyRespond();
}
There will be a warning says: before the call is completed. Consider applying the 'await' operator to the result of the call.
So what if I really awaited it? What is the best practice in C# to 'fire and forget', just call an async method without waiting for its completion?

A standalone discard is the best way to avoid this warning.
_ = Task.Run(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
Discards are dummy variables and can be used to ignore the Task object returned by an asynchronous operation.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/discards#a-standalone-discard

If you truly just want to fire and forget. Simply don't call use await.
// It is a good idea to add CancellationTokens
var asyncProcedure = SomeHTTPAction(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
// Or If not simply do:
var asyncProcedure = SomeHTTPAction().ConfigureAwait(false);
If you want to use the result output later its gets trickier. But if it is truly fire and forget the above should work
A Cancellation token allows interrupts and canceling procedures. If you are using Cancellation token you will need to use it everywhere from the retrieval straight through to the calling method (Turtles all the way down).
I used ConfigureAwait(false) to prevent deadlocks. Here for more information
EDIT
See the second answer that uses 'Task.Factory.StartNew' I gave this answer some time ago. At the time I didn't realise that the way I did it at the time doesn't ensure completion.

If you need to use async in your function you can also use a discard variable and don't use await. This is also usefull if you have multiple async function calls but you don't need to wait for all of them.
public async function(){
var tmp = await asyncfunction();
...
_ = _httpClient.PutAsync(url, content);
...
}

As Amadan told in the comment that, you need to remove async from your function. then it will stop giving you the warning.
// This method has to be async
public Response SomeHTTPAction()
{
// Some logic...
// ...
// Send an Email but don't care if it successfully sent.
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync());
return MyRespond();
}
and Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _emailService.SendEmailAsync()); will indeed work on a new thread.

It all depends on what your Async method accepts. Normally it will accept a "special" class that also holds an event. You can subscribe your callback method to that event and pass it along with the method. When it's finished, your callback method will be called.
An example of this (for sockets) would be:
public void CreateSocket()
{
Socket s = new Socket(AddressFamily.InterNetwork, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
SocketAsyncEventArgs sockAsync = new SocketAsyncEventArgs();
sockAsync.Completed += SockAsync_Completed;
s.ConnectAsync(sockAsync);
}
private void SockAsync_Completed(object sender, SocketAsyncEventArgs e)
{
//Do stuff with your callback object.
}
It all depends on what the method you are trying to call can accept. I would look at the documentation for more help on that specifically.

I am curious why this hasn't been suggested.
new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.CurrentThread.IsBackground = true;
//what ever code here...e.g.
DoSomething();
UpdateSomething();
}).Start();
It just fires off a separate thread.

Best way to return from an async void method if an awaited task is canceled [duplicate]

In our application we work a lot with async / await and Tasks. Therefore it does use Task.Run a lot, sometimes with cancellation support using the built in CancellationToken.
public Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}, cancellationToken);
}
If i do now cancel the execution using the CancellationToken the execution does stop at the beginning of the next loop, or if the Task did not start at all it throws an exception (TaskCanceledException inside Task.Run). The question is now why does Task.Run use an Exception to control successful cancellation instead of just returning a completed Task. Is there any specific reason MS did not stick to the "Do NOT use exceptions to control execution flow" rule?.
And how can i avoid Boxing every method that supports cancellation (which are a lot) in an completely useless try catch (TaskCancelledException) block?

Well, you can't really see the difference in your very simple scenario - you're not actually using the result of the Task, and you don't need to propagate the cancellation through a complex call stack.
First, your Task might return a value. What do you return when the operation was cancelled?
Second, there may be other tasks that follow your cancelled task. You probably want to propagate the cancellation through the other tasks at your convenience.
Exceptions propagate. Task cancellation is pretty much identical to Thread.Abort in this usage - when you issue a Thread.Abort, a ThreadAbortException is used to make sure you unwind all the way back to the top. Otherwise, all of your methods would have to check the result of every method they call, check if they were cancelled, and return themselves if needed - and we've already seen that people will ignore error return values in old-school C :)
In the end, task cancellation, just like thread aborts, is an exceptional scenario. It already involves synchronization, stack unwinding etc.
However, this doesn't mean you necessarily have to use try-catch to catch the exception - you can use task states. For example, you can use a helper function like this:
public static Task<T> DefaultIfCanceled<T>(this Task<T> #this, T defaultValue = default(T))
{
return
#this.ContinueWith
(
t =>
{
if (t.IsCanceled) return defaultValue;
return t.Result;
}
);
}
Which you can use as
await SomeAsync().DefaultIfCanceled();
Of course, it should be noted that noöne is forcing you to use this method of cancellation - it's simply provided as a convenience. For example, you could use your own amplified type to preserve the cancellation information, and handle the cancellation manually. But when you start doing that, you'll find the reason why cancellation is handled using exceptions - doing this in imperative code is a pain, so you'll either waste a lot of effort for no gain, or you'll switch to a more functional way of programming (come, we have cookies!*).
(*) Disclaimer: We don't actually have cookies. But you can make your own!

The exception is thrown for a purpose as others in the community have already pointed it out.
However, if you would like to have more control over TaskCanceledException behaviour and still have the logic isolated to one place you may implement an Extension method to extend Task which handles cancellation, something like this -
public async Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}).
WithCancellation(cancellationToken,false); // pass the cancellation token to extension funciton instead to run
}
static class TaskCacellationHelper
{
private struct Void { } // just to support TaskCompletionSource class.
public static async Task WithCancellation(this Task originalTask, CancellationToken ct, bool suppressCancellationExcetion)
{
// Create a Task that completes when the CancellationToken is canceled
var cancelTask = new TaskCompletionSource<Void>();
// When the CancellationToken is canceled, complete the Task
using (ct.Register(
t => ((TaskCompletionSource<Void>)t).TrySetResult(new Void()), cancelTask))
{
// Create a Task that completes when either the original or
// CancellationToken Task completes
Task any = await Task.WhenAny(originalTask, cancelTask.Task);
// If any Task completes due to CancellationToken, throw OperationCanceledException
if (any == cancelTask.Task)
{
//
if (suppressCancellationExcetion == false)
{
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Cancelled but exception supressed");
}
}
}
// await original task. Incase of cancellation your logic will break the while loop
await originalTask;
}
}

TaskCancellationException how to avoid the exception on success control flow?

In our application we work a lot with async / await and Tasks. Therefore it does use Task.Run a lot, sometimes with cancellation support using the built in CancellationToken.
public Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}, cancellationToken);
}
If i do now cancel the execution using the CancellationToken the execution does stop at the beginning of the next loop, or if the Task did not start at all it throws an exception (TaskCanceledException inside Task.Run). The question is now why does Task.Run use an Exception to control successful cancellation instead of just returning a completed Task. Is there any specific reason MS did not stick to the "Do NOT use exceptions to control execution flow" rule?.
And how can i avoid Boxing every method that supports cancellation (which are a lot) in an completely useless try catch (TaskCancelledException) block?

Well, you can't really see the difference in your very simple scenario - you're not actually using the result of the Task, and you don't need to propagate the cancellation through a complex call stack.
First, your Task might return a value. What do you return when the operation was cancelled?
Second, there may be other tasks that follow your cancelled task. You probably want to propagate the cancellation through the other tasks at your convenience.
Exceptions propagate. Task cancellation is pretty much identical to Thread.Abort in this usage - when you issue a Thread.Abort, a ThreadAbortException is used to make sure you unwind all the way back to the top. Otherwise, all of your methods would have to check the result of every method they call, check if they were cancelled, and return themselves if needed - and we've already seen that people will ignore error return values in old-school C :)
In the end, task cancellation, just like thread aborts, is an exceptional scenario. It already involves synchronization, stack unwinding etc.
However, this doesn't mean you necessarily have to use try-catch to catch the exception - you can use task states. For example, you can use a helper function like this:
public static Task<T> DefaultIfCanceled<T>(this Task<T> #this, T defaultValue = default(T))
{
return
#this.ContinueWith
(
t =>
{
if (t.IsCanceled) return defaultValue;
return t.Result;
}
);
}
Which you can use as
await SomeAsync().DefaultIfCanceled();
Of course, it should be noted that noöne is forcing you to use this method of cancellation - it's simply provided as a convenience. For example, you could use your own amplified type to preserve the cancellation information, and handle the cancellation manually. But when you start doing that, you'll find the reason why cancellation is handled using exceptions - doing this in imperative code is a pain, so you'll either waste a lot of effort for no gain, or you'll switch to a more functional way of programming (come, we have cookies!*).
(*) Disclaimer: We don't actually have cookies. But you can make your own!

The exception is thrown for a purpose as others in the community have already pointed it out.
However, if you would like to have more control over TaskCanceledException behaviour and still have the logic isolated to one place you may implement an Extension method to extend Task which handles cancellation, something like this -
public async Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
while (true)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) break;
//do some work
}
}).
WithCancellation(cancellationToken,false); // pass the cancellation token to extension funciton instead to run
}
static class TaskCacellationHelper
{
private struct Void { } // just to support TaskCompletionSource class.
public static async Task WithCancellation(this Task originalTask, CancellationToken ct, bool suppressCancellationExcetion)
{
// Create a Task that completes when the CancellationToken is canceled
var cancelTask = new TaskCompletionSource<Void>();
// When the CancellationToken is canceled, complete the Task
using (ct.Register(
t => ((TaskCompletionSource<Void>)t).TrySetResult(new Void()), cancelTask))
{
// Create a Task that completes when either the original or
// CancellationToken Task completes
Task any = await Task.WhenAny(originalTask, cancelTask.Task);
// If any Task completes due to CancellationToken, throw OperationCanceledException
if (any == cancelTask.Task)
{
//
if (suppressCancellationExcetion == false)
{
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Cancelled but exception supressed");
}
}
}
// await original task. Incase of cancellation your logic will break the while loop
await originalTask;
}
}

await any async method and (event or boolean)

I have this code :
ManualResetEvent EventListenerStopped;
...
while (true)
{
IAsyncResult iar = this.ListenerHttp.BeginGetContext(ProcessRequest, null);
if (WaitHandle.WaitAny(new[] { this.EventListenerStopped, iar.AsyncWaitHandle }) == 0)
return;
}
Basically it waits for any of two events :
if a request is received, it processes it and wait for the next one.
if EventListenerStopped is raised, it exits the loop.
This code has been running in production beautifully for quite some time now.
I wanted to try and convert it to the new await/async mechanism and can't seem to find a good simple way to do it.
I tried with a boolean the caller can turn to false. It obviously does not work as it exits the loop only after a new request has been received and processed :
bool RunLoop;
...
while (this.RunLoop)
{
HttpListenerContext listenerContext = await this.ListenerHttp.GetContextAsync();
ProcessRequest(listenerContext);
}
I'm wondering if it's even possible to rewrite my simple old-style loop with async/await. If yes, would someone be willing to show me how ?

It's not specific to async-await, but you're probably looking for CancellationToken (which is used with a lot of async-await code anyway):
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2009/05/22/9635790.aspx
The 'BlockingOperation' example code seems similar to what you're trying to do:
void BlockingOperation(CancellationToken token)
{
ManualResetEvent mre = new ManualResetEvent(false);
//register a callback that will set the MRE
CancellationTokenRegistration registration =
token.Register(() => mre.Set());
using (registration)
{
mre.WaitOne();
if (token.IsCancellationRequested) //did cancellation wake us?
throw new OperationCanceledException(token);
} //dispose the registration, which performs the deregisteration.
}

Well, first I must point out that the old code is not quite correct. When dealing with the Begin/End pattern, you must always call End, even if you want to (or did) cancel the operation. End is often used to dispose resources.
If you do want to use cancellation, a CancellationToken is likely the best approach:
while (true)
{
// Throws an OperationCanceledException when cancellationToken is canceled.
var request = await this.ListenerHttp.GetContextAsync(cancellationToken);
ProcessRequest(request);
}
There are alternatives - it's possible to do something like Task.WhenAny, and there are even implementations of AsyncManualResetEvent, so it's possible to create an almost line-by-line equivalent to the old code, but IMO the cancellation token approach would be cleaner.
For example, using AsyncManualResetEvent from my AsyncEx library:
AsyncManualResetEvent eventListenerStopped;
while (true)
{
var task = GetContextAndProcessRequestAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(eventListenerStopped.WaitAsync(), task) != task)
return;
}
async Task GetContextAndProcessRequestAsync()
{
var request = await this.ListenerHttp.GetContextAsync();
ProcessRequest(request);
}
But personally, I would change to use CancellationToken.