Develop Reference

Better solution for sync/async problem in desktop app?

I have WinForms app where button click calls some async method of external library.
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await CallLibraryAsync();
}
private static async Task CallLibraryAsync()
{
var library = new Library();
await library.DoSomethingAsync();
}
The library looks like this:
public class Library
{
public async Task DoSomethingAsync()
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
await Task.Delay(1000).ConfigureAwait(false);
// some other code
}
}
Before any asynchronous code there is some calculation simulated by Thread.Sleep call. In that case this call will block UI thread for 2 seconds. I have no option to change the code in DoSomethingAsync.
If I want to solve blocking problem, I could call the library in Task.Run like this:
private static async Task CallLibraryAsync()
{
var library = new Library();
// added Task.Run
await Task.Run(() => library.DoSomethingAsync());
}
It solves the problem, UI is not blocke anymore, but I've consumed one thread from ThreadPool. It is not good solution.
If I want to solve this problem without another thread, I can do something like this:
private static async Task CallLibraryAsync()
{
var library = new Library();
// added
await YieldOnlyAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
await library.DoSomethingAsync();
}
// added
private static async Task YieldOnlyAsync()
{
await Task.Yield();
}
This solution works. Task.Yield() causes that method YieldOnlyAsync() always runs asynchronously and ConfigureAwait(false) causes that next code (await library.DoSomethingAsync();) runs on some ThreadPool thread, not UI thread.
But it is quite complicated solution. Is there any simpler?
Edit:
If the library method looks like this
public class Library
{
public async Task DoSomethingAsync()
{
await Task.Delay(1000).ConfigureAwait(false);
Thread.Sleep(2000);
await Task.Delay(1000);
// some other code
}
}
UI thread would not be blocked and I do not need to do anything. But that's the problem that it is some implementation detail I do not see directly because that could be in some nuget package. When I see that the UI freezes in some situations, I may find this problem (mean CPU-bound calculation before any await in async method) just after some investigation. There is no Wait() or Result, that would be easy to find, this is more problematic.
What I would like is to be prepared for that situation if possible in some simpler way. And that's why I do not want to use Task.Run whenewer I call some third-party library.

If I want to solve blocking problem, I could call the library in Task.Run like this:
It solves the problem, UI is not blocke anymore, but I've consumed one thread from ThreadPool. It is not good solution.
This is exactly what you want to do in a WinForms app. CPU-intensive code should be moved to a separate thread to free up the UI thread. There isn't any downside to consuming a new thread in WinForms.
Use Task.Run to move it to a different thread, and wait asynchronously from the UI thread for it to complete.
To quote the Asynchronous programming article from Microsoft:
If the work you have is CPU-bound and you care about responsiveness, use async and await, but spawn off the work on another thread with Task.Run.

I have no option to change the code
People say that, but you might not actually be hamstrung thus..
Here's a simple app with the same problem you face:
It's definitely pretty sleepy:
So let's whack it into ILSpy with the Reflexil plugin loaded:
We can perhaps shorten that timeout a bit.. Right click, Edit..
Make it 1ms, Right click the assembly and Save As..
That's a bit quicker!
Have a play, NOP it out etc..

You wrote:
If I want to solve blocking problem, I could call the library in Task.Run like this:
private static async Task CallLibraryAsync()
{
var library = new Library();
// added Task.Run
await Task.Run(() => library.DoSomethingAsync());
}
It solves the problem, UI is not blocked anymore, but I've consumed one thread from ThreadPool. It is not good solution.
(emphasis added)
...and then you proceed with inventing a convoluted hack that does the same thing: offloads the invocation of the DoSomethingAsync method to the ThreadPool. So you either want to:
Invoke the DoSomethingAsync method without using any thread at all, or
Invoke the DoSomethingAsync method on a non-ThreadPool thread.
The first is impossible. You can't invoke a method without using a thread. Code runs on CPUs, not on thin air. The second can be done in many ways, with the easiest being to use the Task.Factory.StartNew method, in combination with the LongRunning flag:
await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => library.DoSomethingAsync(), default,
TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default).Unwrap();
This way you will invoke the DoSomethingAsync on a newly created thread, which will be destroyed immediately after the invocation of the method has completed. To be clear, the thread will be destroyed when the invocation completes, not when the asynchronous operation completes. Based on the DoSomethingAsync implementation that you have included in the question (the first one), the invocation will complete immediately after creating the Task.Delay(1000) task, and initiating the await of this task. There will be nothing for the thread to do after this point, so it will be recycled.
Side notes:
The CallLibraryAsync method violates the guideline for not exposing asynchronous wrappers for synchronous methods. Since the DoSomethingAsync method is implemented as partially synchronous and partially asynchronous, the guideline still applies IMHO.
If you like the idea of controlling imperatively the current context, instead of controlling it with wrappers like the Task.Run method, you could check out this question: Why was SwitchTo removed from Async CTP / Release? There are (not very many) people who like it as well, and there are libraries available that make it possible (SwitchTo - Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading).

When you use async/await for I/O or CPU-bound operations, your UI thread will not blocked. In your example, you use Thread.Sleep(2000);command for simulating your CPU-bound operations but this will block your thread-pool thread not UI thread. You can use Task.Delay(2000); for simulating your I/O operations without blocking thread-pool thread.

Is Async/Await using Task.Run starting a new thread asynchronously?

I have read a lot of articles and still cant get understand this part.
Consider this code :
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Dosomething();
}
private async Task<string> Dosomething()
{
await Task.Run((() => "Do Work"));
return "I am done";
}
First question:
When I click the button, it will Call DoSomething and await a Task that creates a Thread from the threadpool by calling Task.Run ( if I am not mistaken ) and all of this runs asynchronously. So I achieved creating a thread that does my work but doing it asynchronously? But consider that I don't need any result back, i just want the work to be done without getting any result back, is there really a need to use async/await , and if so, how?
Second question:
When running a thread asynchronously, how does that work? Is it running on the main UI but on a separate thread or is it running on a separate thread and separate is asynchronously inside that method?

The purpose of creating Async methods is so you can Await them later. Kind of like "I'm going to put this water on to boil, finish prepping the rest of my soup ingredients, and then come back to the pot and wait for the water to finish boiling so I can make dinner." You start the water boiling, which it does asynchronously while you do other things, but eventually you have to stop and wait for it. If what you want is to "fire-and-forget" then Async and Await are not necessary.
Simplest way to do a fire and forget method in C#?
Starting a new task queues that task for execution on a threadpool thread. Threads execute in the context of the process (eg. the executable that runs your application). If this is a web application running under IIS, then that thread is created in the context of the IIS worker process. That thread executes separately from the main execution thread, so it goes off and does its thing regardless of what your main execution thread is doing, and at the same time, your main execution thread moves on with its own work.

1
There's a big difference if you don't await the Task or you await it:
Case you don't await it: DoSomething is called but next sentence is executed while DoSomething Task hasn't been completed.
Case you await it: DoSomething is called and next sentence is executed once DoSomething Task has been completed.
So, the need of async/await will depend on how you want to call DoSomething: if you don't await it is like calling it the fire & forget way.
2
Is it running on the main UI but on a separate thread or is it running
on a seperate thread and separate is asynchronously inside that
method?
Asynchronous code sometimes means other thread (see this Q&A Asynchronous vs Multithreading - Is there a difference?). That is, either if the code is being executed in a separate thread from the UI one or it lets continue the processing of the UI thread while it gets resumed, it's nice because UI loop can still update the screen while other tasks are being done in parallel without freezing the UI.
An asynchronous method (i.e. async method) is a syntactic sugar to tell the compiler that await statements should be treated as a state machine. The C# compiler turns your async/await code into a state machine where code awaiting a Task result is executed after the code that's being awaited.
Interesting Q&As
You might want to review these other Q&As:
Async/Await vs Threads
What's the difference between Task.Start/Wait and Async/Await?
async/await - when to return a Task vs void?
Is Async await keyword equivalent to a ContinueWith lambda?
OP said...
[...] But does this mean that "async/await" will fire off a thread and
Task.Run also fires off a thread or are they both the same thread?
Using async-await doesn't mean "I create a thread". It's just a syntactic sugar to implement continuations in an elegant way. A Task may or may not be a thread. For example, Task.FromResult(true) creates a fake task to be able to implement an async method without requirement it to create a thread:
public Task<bool> SomeAsync()
{
// This way, this method either decides if its code is asynchronous or
// synchronous, but the caller can await it anyway!
return Task.FromResult(true);
}

The type Task<TResult> requires you to return a TResult from your task. If you don't have anything to return, you can use Task instead (which, incidentally, is the base class of Task<TResult>).
But keep in mind that a task is not a thread. A task is a job to be done, while a thread is a worker. As your program runs, jobs and workers become available and unavailable. Behind the scenes, the library will assign your jobs to available workers and, because creating new workers is a costly operation, it will typically prefer to reuse the existing ones, through a thread pool.

creating a threadless task using Taskcompletion source

I am getting my hands dirty with TPL.I stumbled upon a topic in TPL called TaskCompletionSource which is one of the ways to create a Task and it give you more control over the task by allowing developers in setting result,exception etc etc. Here is an example using task completion source
public static Task<int> RunAsyncFunction(Func<int> sampleFunction)
{
if (sampleFunction == null)
throw new NullReferenceException("Method cannot be null");
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<int>();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(_ =>
{
try
{
int result = sampleFunction();
tcs.SetResult(result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
tcs.SetException(ex);
}
});
return tcs.Task;
}
However this is not truly asynchronus programming.It is asynchronus programming using multithreading .How can I convert this example to get it run on a single thread rather than multiple threads ? or is there any other example I can follow?

For it to be asynchronous, it needs some capacity to be completed independently in the future. That is typically via one of two things:
via a callback from an operation such as socket IO, file IO, a system timer, etc (some external source that can cause reactivation)
a second thread (possibly a queued work pool thread, like in your example)
If you only have a single thread, and no external callback, then there really isn't any need or sense in using Task<T>. However, you can still expose that by simply performing the calculation now, and setting the result now - or more simply: using Task.FromResult.
However, the code you have shown is genuinely asynchronous - or more specifically: the Task<T> that you return is. It perhaps isn't the greatest use-case, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it - except that your entire method can be hugely simplified to:
return Task.Run(sampleFunction);
The Task.Run<T> method:
Queues the specified work to run on the ThreadPool and returns a task or Task handle for that work.
Normally, if I'm using TaskCompletionSource, it is because I am writing IO-callback based tasks, not ThreadPool based tasks; Task.Run is fine for most of those.

TaskCompletionSource doesn't make your code asynchronous. It's a utility to enable someone else to asynchronously await your operation.
Your operation needs to already be asynchronous on its own. For example if it's in an older paradigm, like the BeginXXX/EndXXX one.
TaskCompletionSource is mostly used to convert different types of asynchronous programming into Task based asynchronous programming.

Is it considered good practice to use Task.ContinueWith() as a form of event "TaskEnded"

Task doesn't have a completed event/method that I can use to execute follow up code. If Task were to execute a long running operation (such as downloading data from the web to update a local database), is it considered good practice to use the method Task.ContinueWith() for executing an on completed like event? Are there any unwanted side effects or issues I may run into with this approach?

It is fine to use ContinueWith() to follow up on completion of long-running operations. However, as of .NET 4.5 there is a more concise way to write this, which is to use the async/await keywords. For instance:
using (var client = new HttpClient(...))
{
// long-running download operation, but UI remains responsive because
// the operation executes asynchronously
var response = await client.GetAsync();
// control resumes here once the above completes,
// returning control to the UI thread.
this.TextField.Text = "Download Complete!";
}
You can interpret whatever happens after the await as the continuation, i.e. the stuff you would normally put in your ContinueWith(). The await has the effect of waiting for the operation to complete, unwrapping the result from the returned task, and resuming execution on the current context - in this case the UI thread.
This is a great way to carry out long-running I/O operations and still have a responsive UI. You will need to do this in an async method - see the official documentation for more information.

When would I use Task.Yield()?

I'm using async/await and Task a lot but have never been using Task.Yield() and to be honest even with all the explanations I do not understand why I would need this method.
Can somebody give a good example where Yield() is required?

When you use async/await, there is no guarantee that the method you call when you do await FooAsync() will actually run asynchronously. The internal implementation is free to return using a completely synchronous path.
If you're making an API where it's critical that you don't block and you run some code asynchronously, and there's a chance that the called method will run synchronously (effectively blocking), using await Task.Yield() will force your method to be asynchronous, and return control at that point. The rest of the code will execute at a later time (at which point, it still may run synchronously) on the current context.
This can also be useful if you make an asynchronous method that requires some "long running" initialization, ie:
private async void button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Task.Yield(); // Make us async right away
var data = ExecuteFooOnUIThread(); // This will run on the UI thread at some point later
await UseDataAsync(data);
}
Without the Task.Yield() call, the method will execute synchronously all the way up to the first call to await.

Internally, await Task.Yield() simply queues the continuation on either the current synchronization context or on a random pool thread, if SynchronizationContext.Current is null.
It is efficiently implemented as custom awaiter. A less efficient code producing the identical effect might be as simple as this:
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
var sc = SynchronizationContext.Current;
if (sc != null)
sc.Post(_ => tcs.SetResult(true), null);
else
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(_ => tcs.SetResult(true));
await tcs.Task;
Task.Yield() can be used as a short-cut for some weird execution flow alterations. For example:
async Task DoDialogAsync()
{
var dialog = new Form();
Func<Task> showAsync = async () =>
{
await Task.Yield();
dialog.ShowDialog();
}
var dialogTask = showAsync();
await Task.Yield();
// now we're on the dialog's nested message loop started by dialog.ShowDialog
MessageBox.Show("The dialog is visible, click OK to close");
dialog.Close();
await dialogTask;
// we're back to the main message loop
}
That said, I can't think of any case where Task.Yield() cannot be replaced with Task.Factory.StartNew w/ proper task scheduler.
See also:
"await Task.Yield()" and its alternatives
Task.Yield - real usages?

One use of Task.Yield() is to prevent a stack overflow when doing async recursion. Task.Yield() prevents syncronous continuation. Note, however, that this can cause an OutOfMemory exception (as noted by Triynko). Endless recursion is still not safe and you're probably better off rewriting the recursion as a loop.
private static void Main()
{
RecursiveMethod().Wait();
}
private static async Task RecursiveMethod()
{
await Task.Delay(1);
//await Task.Yield(); // Uncomment this line to prevent stackoverlfow.
await RecursiveMethod();
}

Task.Yield() is like a counterpart of Thread.Yield() in async-await but with much more specific conditions. How many times do you even need Thread.Yield()? I will answer the title "when would you use Task.Yield()" broadly first. You would when the following conditions are fulfilled:
want to return the control to the async context (suggesting the task scheduler to execute other tasks in the queue first)
need to continue in the async context
prefer to continue immediately when the task scheduler is free
do not want to be cancelled
prefer shorter code
The term "async context" here means "SynchronizationContext first then TaskScheduler". It was used by Stephen Cleary.
Task.Yield() is approximately doing this (many posts get it slightly wrong here and there):
await Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => {},
CancellationToken.None,
TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness,
SynchronizationContext.Current != null?
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext():
TaskScheduler.Current);
If any one of the conditions is broken, you need to use other alternatives instead.
If the continuation of a task should be in Task.DefaultScheduler, you normally use ConfigureAwait(false). On the contrary, Task.Yield() gives you an awaitable not having ConfigureAwait(bool). You need to use the approximated code with TaskScheduler.Default.
If Task.Yield() obstructs the queue, you need to restructure your code instead as explained by noseratio.
If you need the continuation to happen much later, say, in the order of millisecond, you would use Task.Delay.
If you want the task to be cancellable in the queue but do not want to check the cancellation token nor throw an exception yourself, you need to use the approximated code with a cancellation token.
Task.Yield() is so niche and easily dodged. I only have one imaginary example by mixing my experience. It is to solve an async dining philosopher problem constrained by a custom scheduler. In my multi-thread helper library InSync, it supports unordered acquisitions of async locks. It enqueues an async acquisition if the current one failed. The code is here. It needs ConfigureAwait(false) as a general purpose library so I need to use Task.Factory.StartNew. In a closed source project, my program needs to execute significant synchronous code mixed with async code with
a high thread priority for semi-realtime work
a low thread priority for some background work
a normal thread priority for UI
Thus, I need a custom scheduler. I could easily imagine some poor developers somehow need to mix sync and async code together with some special schedulers in a parallel universe (one universe probably does not contain such developers); but why wouldn't they just use the more robust approximated code so they do not need to write a lengthy comment to explain why and what it does?

Task.Yield() may be used in mock implementations of async methods.