I have a task, but processes inside it don't run in parallel. Second one waits for the first one to compelete. Can you explain why and how can I correct this? I want both of them run at the same time.
And second question, Should I use task instead of threads?
Thanks in advance.
new Task(() =>
{
Counter1();
Counter2();
}).Start();
private void Counter2()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 30; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
label2.Text = i.ToString();
}
}
private void Counter1()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 30; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
label3.Text = i.ToString();
if(i == 15)
Thread.Sleep(3000);
}
}
Use Parallel.Invoke and call Counter1() and Counter2() as shown in following example from MSDN (after updating the () anonymous lambda invocation to invoke your 2 methods.
#region ParallelTasks
// Perform three tasks in parallel on the source array
Parallel.Invoke(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Begin first task...");
GetLongestWord(words);
}, // close first Action
() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Begin second task...");
GetMostCommonWords(words);
}, //close second Action
() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Begin third task...");
GetCountForWord(words, "species");
} //close third Action
); //close parallel.invoke
Console.WriteLine("Returned from Parallel.Invoke");
#endregion
Related
I have a problem that is when I call an async method, it enters and comes up against a condition that I have set, where it sends me an exception that says:
"The subprocess making the call can not access this object because the
owner is another thread.",
I just want the condition process to run in the background with the async method
private Task ObtenerDatosd()
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
for (int i = draw2.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if (draw2[i].ToString().ToLower().Contains(SearcInterno.Text.ToLower()))
{
//action
System.Windows.MessageBox.Show("Code action");
}
}
});
}
You cannot access WPF objects from another thread without a dispatcher. But you don't need it in this case, if you just use:
private Task ObtenerDatosd()
{
string text = SearcInterno.Text.ToLower();
return Task.Run(() =>
{
for (int i = draw2.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
if(draw2[i].ToString().ToLower().Contains(text))
{
//action
System.Windows.MessageBox.Show("Code action");
}
}
});
}
I'm trying to build a Windows Forms tool that runs queries asynchronously.
The app has a datagridview with 30 possible queries to run. The user checks the queries he wants to execute, say 10 queries, and hits a button.
The app has a variable called maxthreads = 3 (for the sake of discussion) that indicates how many threads can be used to async run the queries. The queries run on a production environment and we don't want to overload the system with too many threads running in the same time. Each query runs for an average of 30 sec. (some 5 min., others 2 sec.)
In the datagridview there is an image column containing an icon that depicts the status of each query (0- Available to be run, 1-Selected for running, 2- Running, 3- Successfully completed, -1 Error)
I need to be able to communicate with the UI every time a query starts and finishes. Once a query finishes, the results are being displayed in a datagridview contained in a Tabcontrol (one tab per query)
The approach: I was thinking to create a number of maxthread backgroundworkers and let them run the queries. As a backgroundworker finishes it communicates to the UI and is assigned to a new query and so on until all queries have been run.
I tried using an assignmentWorker that would dispatch the work to the background workers but don't know how to wait for all threads to finish. Once a bgw finishes it reports progress on the RunWorkerCompleted event to the assignmentWorker, but that one has already finished.
In the UI thread I call the assignment worker with all the queries that need to be run:
private void btnRunQueries_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (AnyQueriesSelected())
{
tcResult.TabPages.Clear();
foreach (DataGridViewRow dgr in dgvQueries.Rows)
{
if (Convert.ToBoolean(dgr.Cells["chk"].Value))
{
Query q = new Query(dgr.Cells["ID"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Name"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["FileName"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["ShortDescription"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["LongDescription"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Level"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Task"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Importance"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["SkillSet"].Value.ToString(),
false,
new Dictionary<string, string>()
{ { "#ClntNb#", txtClntNum.Text }, { "#Staff#", "100300" } });
qryList.Add(q);
}
}
assignmentWorker.RunWorkerAsync(qryList);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("Please select at least one query.",
"Warning",
MessageBoxButtons.OK,
MessageBoxIcon.Information);
}
}
Here is the AssignmentWorker:
private void assignmentWorker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
foreach (Query q in (List<Query>)e.Argument)
{
while (!q.Processed)
{
for (int threadNum = 0; threadNum < maxThreads; threadNum++)
{
if (!threadArray[threadNum].IsBusy)
{
threadArray[threadNum].RunWorkerAsync(q);
q.Processed = true;
assignmentWorker.ReportProgress(1, q);
break;
}
}
//If all threads are being used, sleep awhile before checking again
if (!q.Processed)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
}
}
All bgw run the same event:
private void backgroundWorkerFiles_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
try
{
Query qry = (Query)e.Argument;
DataTable dtNew = DataAccess.RunQuery(qry).dtResult;
if (dsQryResults.Tables.Contains(dtNew.TableName))
{
dsQryResults.Tables.Remove(dtNew.TableName);
}
dsQryResults.Tables.Add(dtNew);
e.Result = qry;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
Once the Query has returned and the DataTable has been added to the dataset:
private void backgroundWorkerFiles_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
try
{
if (e.Error != null)
{
assignmentWorker.ReportProgress(-1, e.Result);
}
else
{
assignmentWorker.ReportProgress(2, e.Result);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
int o = 0;
}
}
The problem I have is that the assignment worker finishes before the bgw finish and the call to assignmentWorker.ReportProgress go to hell (excuse my French).
How can I wait for all the launched bgw to finish before finishing the assignment worker?
Thank you!
As noted in the comment above, you have overcomplicated your design. If you have a specific maximum number of tasks (queries) that should be executing concurrently, you can and should simply create that number of workers, and have them consume tasks from your queue (or list) of tasks until that queue is empty.
Lacking a good Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable code example that concisely and clearly illustrates your specific scenario, it's not feasible to provide code that would directly address your question. But, here's an example using a List<T> as your original code does, which will work as I describe above:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TestSO42101517WaitAsyncTasks
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Random random = new Random();
int maxTasks = 30,
maxActive = 3,
maxDelayMs = 1000,
currentDelay = -1;
List<TimeSpan> taskDelays = new List<TimeSpan>(maxTasks);
for (int i = 0; i < maxTasks; i++)
{
taskDelays.Add(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(random.Next(maxDelayMs)));
}
Task[] tasks = new Task[maxActive];
object o = new object();
for (int i = 0; i < maxActive; i++)
{
int workerIndex = i;
tasks[i] = Task.Run(() =>
{
DelayConsumer(ref currentDelay, taskDelays, o, workerIndex);
});
}
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for consumer tasks");
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
Console.WriteLine("All consumer tasks completed");
}
private static void DelayConsumer(ref int currentDelay, List<TimeSpan> taskDelays, object o, int workerIndex)
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} starting");
while (true)
{
TimeSpan delay;
int delayIndex;
lock (o)
{
delayIndex = ++currentDelay;
if (delayIndex < taskDelays.Count)
{
delay = taskDelays[delayIndex];
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} exiting");
return;
}
}
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} sleeping for {delay.TotalMilliseconds} ms, task #{delayIndex}");
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(delay);
}
}
}
}
In your case, each worker would report progress to some global state. You don't show the ReportProgress handler for your "assignment" worker, so I can't say specifically what this would look like. But presumably it would involve passing either -1 or 2 to some method that knows what to do with those values (i.e. what would otherwise have been your ReportProgress handler).
Note that the code can simplified somewhat, particularly where the individual tasks are consumed, if you use an actual queue data structure for the tasks. That approach would look something like this:
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TestSO42101517WaitAsyncTasks
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Random random = new Random();
int maxTasks = 30,
maxActive = 3,
maxDelayMs = 1000,
currentDelay = -1;
ConcurrentQueue<TimeSpan> taskDelays = new ConcurrentQueue<TimeSpan>();
for (int i = 0; i < maxTasks; i++)
{
taskDelays.Enqueue(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(random.Next(maxDelayMs)));
}
Task[] tasks = new Task[maxActive];
for (int i = 0; i < maxActive; i++)
{
int workerIndex = i;
tasks[i] = Task.Run(() =>
{
DelayConsumer(ref currentDelay, taskDelays, workerIndex);
});
}
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for consumer tasks");
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
Console.WriteLine("All consumer tasks completed");
}
private static void DelayConsumer(ref int currentDelayIndex, ConcurrentQueue<TimeSpan> taskDelays, int workerIndex)
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} starting");
while (true)
{
TimeSpan delay;
if (!taskDelays.TryDequeue(out delay))
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} exiting");
return;
}
int delayIndex = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref currentDelayIndex);
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} sleeping for {delay.TotalMilliseconds} ms, task #{delayIndex}");
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(delay);
}
}
}
}
I am working on a WinForm project where I have a label in a for loop. I want to show the label each time after executing the label.text statement. But it doesn't show for every time, rather it shows after for loop is finished.
I tried to achieve this by using Thread.Sleep(). But I can't. Please help me.
NOTE :- lblProgress is a Label
Here's my coding.
for (int i = 1; i <= sourceTable.Rows.Count - 1; i++)
{
string checkout;
checkout= sourceTable.Rows[i].Field<string>(0);
dest = new SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["local"].ConnectionString);
dest.Open();
destcmd = new SqlCommand(checkout, dest);
destcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
dest.Close();
prcmail();
prcmessagecheck();
lblProgress.Text = "Hello World"+i;
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
Whenever you create a WinForm application, it is spun up into a new process and a new thread is created. Any updates to the User Interface are all done on the same thread as your process. This means when your application is doing "busy work", your UI will be blocked because they are on the same thread. What this means is that, in order to achieve what it is you're trying to achieve, you have to do a little extra work.
First step we need to do is create a function for your work routine (we could use an anonymous function, but since you are new to C#, I think it'll be easier to understand if we break it out), like this:
private void DoWork()
{
for (int i = 1; i <= sourceTable.Rows.Count - 1; i++)
{
string checkout;
checkout= sourceTable.Rows[i].Field<string>(0);
dest = new SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["local"].ConnectionString);
dest.Open();
destcmd = new SqlCommand(checkout, dest);
destcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
dest.Close();
prcmail();
prcmessagecheck();
lblProgress.Text = "Hello World"+i;
Thread.Sleep(1000); // I changed this from 10000 to 1000 (10 seconds down to 1 second)
}
}
Next, we need to create a new thread that executes our DoWork() function. Its unclear what the "trigger" is for doing your work, but I'm going to assume its a button click:
private void button1_click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var work = new Thread(DoWork);
work.Start();
}
So now, whenever someone click the button, we will start a new thread that executes our DoWork function in that thread. The new thread spawns, then execution is immediate returned and our GUI will now update in real time as our thread is executing in the background.
But wait! We still have one more problem to take care of. The problem is that Window's form controls are not thread safe and if we try to update a control from another thread, other then the GUI's thread, we will get a cross-thread operation error. The key to fixing this is to use InvokeRequired and Invoke.
First, we need to make another function that does just the label update:
private void SetProgressLabel(int progress)
{
lblProgress.Text = "Hello World" + progress;
}
In your form class, we also need to create a new delegate:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private delegate void ProgressCallback(int progress);
// ..
// The rest of your code
// ..
}
Finally, change your DoWork() method to something like this:
private void DoWork()
{
for (int i = 1; i <= sourceTable.Rows.Count - 1; i++)
{
string checkout;
checkout= sourceTable.Rows[i].Field<string>(0);
dest = new SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["local"].ConnectionString);
dest.Open();
destcmd = new SqlCommand(checkout, dest);
destcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
dest.Close();
prcmail();
prcmessagecheck();
if (lblProgress.InvokeRequired)
{
lblProgress.Invoke(new ProgressCallback(SetProgressLabel), new object[] { i });
}
else
{
SetProgressLabel(i);
}
Thread.Sleep(1000); // I changed this from 10000 to 1000 (10 seconds down to 1 second)
}
}
This uses the label's (derived from Control) InvokeRequired property to determine if an Invoke is required. It returns true or false. If its false, we can just call our SetProgressLabel() function like we'd normally do. If its true, we must use Invoke to call our function instead.
Congratulations! You just made your first thread safe application.
Now, just as an aside note, you are not properly releasing and disposing of your objects. I recommend you change your DoWork() code to something like this:
private void DoWork()
{
for (int i = 1; i <= sourceTable.Rows.Count - 1; i++)
{
string checkout;
checkout = sourceTable.Rows[i].Field<string>(0);
using (dest = new SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["local"].ConnectionString))
{
dest.Open();
using (destcmd = new SqlCommand(checkout, dest))
{
destcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
dest.Close();
prcmail();
prcmessagecheck();
if (lblProgress.InvokeRequired)
{
lblProgress.Invoke(new ProgressCallback(SetProgressLabel), new object[] { i });
}
else
{
SetProgressLabel(i);
}
Thread.Sleep(1000); // I changed this from 10000 to 1000 (10 seconds down to 1 second)
}
}
}
}
Because I wrapped your IDisposable's into using blocks, the resources will automatically be disposed of once it goes out of scope.
Although threading would be the more ideal solution another solution is:
Application.DoEvents()
this will give the UI thread time to update.
Example
for (int i = 1; i <= sourceTable.Rows.Count - 1; i++)
{
string checkout;
checkout= sourceTable.Rows[i].Field<string>(0);
dest = new SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["local"].ConnectionString);
dest.Open();
destcmd = new SqlCommand(checkout, dest);
destcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
dest.Close();
prcmail();
prcmessagecheck();
lblProgress.Text = "Hello World"+i;
Application.DoEvents();
}
var ui = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext();
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
for (int i = 1; i <= sourceTable.Rows.Count - 1; i++)
{
string checkout;
checkout = sourceTable.Rows[i].Field<string>(0);
dest = new SqlConnection(System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["local"].ConnectionString);
dest.Open();
destcmd = new SqlCommand(checkout, dest);
destcmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
dest.Close();
prcmail();
prcmessagecheck();
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
//Thread.Sleep(1000);
lblProgress.Text = "Hello World" + i;
}, CancellationToken.None, TaskCreationOptions.None, ui);
task.Wait();
}
});
If you are executing the mentioned code on the UI thread, UI will be refreshed only after entire for loop is executed. Based on your needs, progress bar/background worker kind of set up looks suitable.
I want to update a progressbar as each task is completed below.
The method var continuation2 = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAny(..... doesnt work.
What is the correct way to do this?
C# Code
private void radButtonInsertManyErrors_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
radProgressBarStatus.Maximum = int.Parse(radTextBoxNumberofErrorsInsert.Text);
radProgressBarStatus.Value1 = 0;
Task<int>[] tasks = new Task<int>[int.Parse(radTextBoxNumberofErrorsInsert.Text)];
for (int i = 0; i < int.Parse(radTextBoxNumberofErrorsInsert.Text); i++)
{
int x = i;
tasks[i] = new Task<int>(() =>
{
//insert the error into table FA_Errors
Accessor.Insert_FAErrors(BLLErrorCodes.BLL_Error_Codes.Error_Log_Event_Login.ToString(),
(int)BLLErrorCodes.BLL_Error_Codes.Error_Log_Event_Login,
"Some Error", "",
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType.Namespace.ToString(),
MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().Name.ToString(),
BLLErrorCategory.BLL_Error_Category.WEB_APP.ToString(),
"pc source", "damo",
sConn.ToString());
return 1;
});
}
var continuation = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll(
tasks,
(antecedents) =>
{
RadMessageBox.Show("Finished inserting errors ");
});
var continuation2 = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAny(
tasks,
(antecedents) =>
{
radProgressBarStatus.Value1++;
});
for (int i = 0; i < int.Parse(radTextBoxNumberofErrorsInsert.Text); i++)
tasks[i].Start();
// Use next line if you want to block the main thread until all the tasks are complete
//continuation.Wait();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message.ToString());
}
}
You can use this function:
public static void TaskProgress(IEnumerable<Task> tasks, Action<int> callback)
{
int count = 0;
foreach (var task in tasks)
task.ContinueWith(t => callback(Interlocked.Increment(ref count)));
}
It will call the callback each time a task completes with the number of currently completed tasks. Note that the callbacks are not synchronized, so it can be called while the previous callback is still running.
Set up a continuation with each of the tasks. Keep a (thread-safe) counter on how many completed and update the UI on completion of each task.
Actually, Task.WhenAll does keep such a counter under the hood. It is just not accessible.
i'm using the BlockingCollection for a Producer Consumer pattern and i got an excecption i think to write a patent on it- only two results in google!
the expection is "CompleteAdding may not be used concurrently with additions to the collection" and it happens when i TryAdd on th BlockingCollection as Follows:
public void EnqueueTask(T item)
{
if (!_cancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
_workerQueue.Add(item);
}
}
the CompleteAdding is called on the dispose of the Consumer-Producer wrapper class:
public void Dispose()
{
if (!_IsActive)
return;
_IsActive = false;
_cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
_workerQueue.CompleteAdding();
// Wait for the consumer's thread to finish.
for (int i = 0; i < _workers.Length; ++i)
{
Task t1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
if (!_workers[i].Join(4000))
LogWriter.Trace("Failed to join thread", "ThreadFailureOnDispose");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
OnLogged(ex.Message + ex.StackTrace);
}
});
}
// Release any OS resources.
}
Anyone from microsoft got an idea? should i sleep after the cancelation and before calling the CompleteAdding?
Look at this piece of the code:
for (int i = 0; i < _workers.Length; ++i)
{
Task t1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
if (!_workers[i].Join(4000)) << == Here
LogWriter.Trace("Failed to join thread", "ThreadFailureOnDispose");
}
In _workers[i].Join(4000), the value of i is not what you think it is. Try again with:
for (int i = 0; i < _workers.Length; ++i)
{
int j = i; // copy
Task t1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
if (!_workers[j].Join(4000)) // j
LogWriter.Trace("Failed to join thread", "ThreadFailureOnDispose");
}
In your version, the variable 'i' is captured and all Tasks use the same var. All but the first few will see i == _workers.Length because they are executed after the for-loop is completed.
It is a classic lambda + captured var problem.