I'm using the following code to copy text to Clipboard.
System.Windows.Forms.SendKeys.SendWait("^c");
Then I use
Clipboard.GetText()
to get the text from Clipboard. It works fine, but it looks like it's delaying when I work with clipboard in a loop and I get content that should be overwritten with next copied text. If I put the Thread.sleep, it works fine. How could I fast copy and get the right content from Clipboard in a loop without delay?
This appears to be a documented issue. MSDN acknowledges "timing issues" but doesn't include a way to completely get around them, although there does appear to be a "newer" method that you need to tell your program to use by default. Here's a portion of the documentation:
The SendKeys class has been updated for the .NET Framework 3.0. The SendKeys class is susceptible to timing issues, which some developers have had to work around. The updated implementation is still susceptible to timing issues, but is slightly faster and may require changes to the workarounds. The SendKeys class tries to use the previous implementation first, and if that fails, uses the new implementation. As a result, the SendKeys class may behave differently on different operating systems. Additionally, when the SendKeys class uses the new implementation, the SendWait method will not wait for messages to be processed when they are sent to another process.
If your application relies on consistent behavior regardless of the operating system, you can force the SendKeys class to use the new implementation by adding the following application setting to your app.config file.
<appSettings>
<add key="SendKeys" value="SendInput"/>
</appSettings>
I found a similar (old) issue on another bulletin board, but unfortunately their fix was the same as yours - to delay for a fraction of a second before accessing the clipboard. I couldn't find any other workarounds for the issue. Considering there's a Send and a SendWait, it doesn't seem too much to expect the latter to actually wait after the send! :)
You definitely can NOT update the clipboard in a loop and expect the data to be available (and accessible to your app) immediately. The application that you're sending the keystroke to is running in its own process, and windows is multi-processing, multi-threading, etc.. So you're looking for the clipboard to be updated, before the other app has gotten a chance to copy it.
Furthermore, since there can be other programs running on the system, monitoring the clipboard for updates (clipboard viewers), you are going to be colliding with those programs when you attempt to get the data from the clipboard.
I don't know why you're trying to do what you're doing, but you should be aware that it's not going to work all the time. You may be able to get it to work in some cases, but not all cases. Unless this is an educational exercise for your own use, you should abandon this approach.
And please read this quote on the subject:
"Programs should not transfer data into our out of the clipboard without an explicit instruction from the user.”
— Charles Petzold, Programming Windows 3.1, Microsoft Press, 1992
Related
It is entirely possible I'm going about this entirely the wrong way, but here is what I'm doing:
I have a device that is communicating with a DLL over a COM port. This works fine for a single program, however I need multiple programs to be running, each updating with the state of the device.
Since I can't work out how to share access to a COM port, my solution is that each DLL checks for the existance of a timestamped file. If the file is there, the DLL goes into 'slave' mode and just reads the state of the device from the file. If the file doesn't exist or is over 30ms old, the DLL appoints itself 'master', claims the COM port, and writes the file itself.
(The device can also be sent instructions, so the master will have to handle collecting and sending the slaves' requests somehow, but I can deal with that later. Also I might want the DLLs to be aware of each other, so if one is causing problems then the user can be told about it - again, will get to this later.)
My immediate problem now is, where to store this file/possible collection of files? It must:
be somewhere that doesn't force the programs using the DLLs to have admin privileges or anything else that means they can't "just run".
be always the same place, not somewhere that might change based on some outside factor. Googling has shown me things like, "Environment.SpecialFolder.CommonDocuments" (in C#) but if that location is sometimes C:\ProgramData and other times C:\Users\Public then we'll get two parallel masters, only one of which can claim the COM.
work on as many Windowses as possible (all the way back to XP if I can get away with it) because no one wants to maintain more versions than necessary.
preferably, be somewhere non-technical users won't see it. Quite apart from confusing/scaring them, it just looks unprofessional, doesn't it?
Two sidenotes:
I looked at using the Registry and learned there's a time cost to reading it. The DLLs need to be reading with a period of maybe 10ms, so I assume the Registry is a bad idea.
After we get this working on Windows, we need to turn around and address Android, OSX, Linux, Mac, etc, etc, so I'm trying to bear that in mind when deciding how we structure everything.
EDIT:
I should add for context that we're releasing the DLL and letting other devs create apps that use it. We want them to work as frictionlessly as possible, without for example requiring the user install anything first, or the dev needing to jump through a bunch of hoops to be sure it will work.
I am developing a Windows Store application. Currently, I am getting intermittent hangs as described in this blog post. The issue appears to be that not enough space is given to remainder-defined column widths and TextBlocks attempting to format themselves (possibly due to the ellipsis processing). My app tends to hang indefinitely when this happens.
The question I have less related to how to solve the issue (as it seems to be described fairly well in the blog post), but instead how to find the issues. I have one fairly regularly (approximately one in five or ten start-ups) on a Hub Page, so I've been looking through there (as it's the most notable instance of issue), but it's a true Heisenbug in that it never seems to happen when debugging (or when you look for it).
So, how do I find the offending code? Is there just a pattern I need to look for (ColumnWidth="*"?). Is there a simpler way to solve this, such as changing the base style to remove one of the possibly offending properties listed in the blog post?
It seems possible that this is being caused by another issue, but this seems to be the most likely/plausible as of right now (as with the hubs I have a similar situation to what is being described there).
Also, is there a way to track when this happens in the wild? MSFT provides crash dumps on hangs, but they seem to give little to no information in them at all (and on top of that they only appear 5 days after they happen, which is less than ideal).
Thanks!
This is a complicated question to answer.
First, I think you have identified a real problem with WinRT. You theorize that the layout subsystem seems busy calculating your layout, and based on some condition that occurs around 20% of the time it does not finish in any reasonable time. Reasonable guess.
The problem, then, is when such an event does not occur during debug. In my personal development experience, errors that do not occur in debug are 99.99% timing related. Something is not finishing before a second process begins. Debugging lets those first, long process finish.
This is a real computer science question, and not so much a WinRT or Windows 8 question. To that end, the best answer I can give you without any code samples (why no code samples?) is the typical approach I employ when I reach the same dilemma. I hope it helps, at least a little.
Start with your brain.
I have always joked with developers just how much debugging can be done outside the debugger - and in your mind. Mentally walking the pipeline of your app and looking for race-condition dependencies that might cause deadlocks. Believe it or not, this solves a lot of problems a debugger could never catch - because debuggers unwind timing dependencies.
Next is simplicity.
The more complex the problem the less likely you will find the culprit. In the case of a XAML application, I tend to remove or disable value converters first. Then, I look to remove data templates. If you have element bindings, those go next. If simplifying the XAML does help - that's just the beginning to figuring it out. If it doesn't, things just got easier.
Your code behind can be disabled with just a few keystrokes and found guilty or innocent. It's the most likely place for your problem, I find, and the reason we work so hard to keep it simple, clean, and minimal. After that, there's the view model. Though it's not impossible for your view model to be the one, and indeed you still have to check, it's probably not the root of your evil.
Lastly, there's the app pipeline that loads your page, loads your data, or does anything else. Step by step your only real option is to slowly remove things from your app until you don't see the problem. Removing the problem, though is not solving it. That's a case by case thing based on your app and the logic in it. Reality is, you might see the problem leave when removing XAML, while the real problem is in the view model or elsewhere.
What am I really saying? The silver bullet you are asking for really isn't there. There are several Microsoft tools and even more third party tools to look for bottlenecks, latency problems, slow code, and stuff - but in all reality, the scenario you describe is plain ole programming. I am not saying you aren't the victim of a bug. I'm saying, with the information we have, this is all I can do for you.
You'll get it.
Third thing to do is to add logging, and instrumentation to your app.
Best of luck.
Given that Jerry has answered this at a higher level I figured I would add in the lower level answers that from the way your question is phrased makes me think you are interested in. I guess first I would like to address the last item which is the dump files. There is a mechanism for getting dump files of a process 'in the wild' that Microsoft provides which is through Windows Error Reporting. If you are wanting to collect dump files from failed client processes you could sign up for Windows Error Reporting (I must admit I have never actually done it, but I did look into it and tried to get my current employer to allow me to do this, but it didn't end successfully). To sign up go to the Establish a Hardware/Desktop Account Page.
As far as what to do with dump files once you get them, you would be wanting to download the debugging tools for windows (part of the Windows SDK download) and/or the Debug Diag Tool (I must confess I am more of a debugging tools for windows user than a Debug Diag user). These will provide you with the tools to look into what is going on at a lower level. Obviously you can only go so far as you won't have access to private Microsoft symbols, but you do have access to public symbols and usually those are enough to give you a pretty good idea of the problem area.
Your primary tools will depend on how reproducible the issue is. If it is only reproducible on some client machines then you will have to rely on looking at a single dump file that you probably got a hold of from Windows Error Reporting. In this case what I would do is open it up using the appropriate version of Windbg (either x86 or x64) and look at what was going on at the time the dump was taken. Depending on how savvy you are depends on how far you can go. Probably a simple starter would be to run
.symfix
.reload
.loadby sos clr
!EEStack
This will load Microsoft public symbols, the sos extension dll for dealing with Managed code inspection, and then will dump the contents of the stack for each thread in the process. From looking at the names of the method that appear on the call stacks you might be able to get a pretty good idea of at least the area of the code where the lock is occuring.
You can go much farther than this as Windbg provides the ability to go pretty deep into deadlock analysis (for instance there is an extension available for Windbg called sosex that provides a command !dlk which can sometimes automate the detection of a deadlock for you from a single dump file. To load an extension dll into Windbg you just have to download it and then call .load fullpathtodll). If the problem is reproducible locally you might even be more successful with WPA/WPR or if you are really fortunate a simple procmon trace. These tools do have a pretty decent barrier to entry as they take some time to learn. But if you are really interested in the topic your best resources would be the Defrag Tools series on Channel9 and anything by Mario Hewardt (especially his book "Advanced .Net Debugging"). Again, getting familiar with these tools can take a bunch of time, but at the very least if you just know how to dump the contents of the stacks from a dump file you can sometimes get what you need just from that so a basic understanding of these tools can be beneficial as well.
I have a computationally-expensive multi-threaded C# app that seems to crash consistently after 30-90 minutes of running. The error it gives is
The runtime has encountered a fatal error. The address of the error was at 0xec37ebae, on thread 0xbcc. The error code is 0xc0000005. This error may be a bug in the CLR or in the unsafe or non-verifiable portions of user code. Common sources of this bug include user marshaling errors for COM-interop or PInvoke, which may corrupt the stack.
(0xc0000005 is the error-code for Access Violation)
My app does not invoke any native code, or use any unsafe blocks, or even any non-CLS compliant types like uint. In fact, the line of code that the debugger says caused the crash is
overallLength += distanceTravelled;
Where both values are of type double
Given all this, I believe the crash must be due to a bug in the compiler or CLR or JIT. I'd like to figure out what causes it, or at the very least write a smaller reproduction to send into Microsoft, but I have no idea where to even begin. I've never had to view the CIL-binary, or the compiled JIT output, or the native stacktrace (there is no managed stacktrace at the time of the crash), so I'm not sure how. I can't even figure out how to view the state of all the variables at the time of the crash (VS unfortunately won't tell me like it does after managed-exceptions, and outputting them to console/a file would slow down the app 1000-fold, which is obviously not an option).
So, how do I go about debugging this?
[Edit] Compiled under VS 2010 SP1, running latest version of .Net 4.0 Client Profile. Apparently it's ".Net 4.0C/.Net 4.0E, .Net CLR 1.1.4322"
I'd like to figure out what causes it, or at the very least write a smaller reproduction to send into Microsoft, but I have no idea where to even begin.
"Smaller reproduction" definitely sounds like a great idea here... even if "smaller" won't mean "quicker to reproduce".
Before you even start, try to reproduce the error on another machine. If you can't reproduce it on another machine, that suggests a whole different set of tests to do - hardware, installation etc.
Also, check you're on the latest version of everything. It would be annoying to spend days debugging this (which is likely, I'm afraid) and then end up with a response of "Yes, we know about this - it was a bug in .NET 4 which was fixed in .NET 4.5" for example. If you can reproduce it on a variety of framework versions, that would be even better :)
Next, cut out everything you can in the program:
Does it have a user interface at all? If possible, remove that.
Does it use a database? See if you can remove all database access: definitely any output which isn't used later, and ideally input too. If you can hard code the input within the app, that would be ideal - but if not, files are simpler for reproductions than database access.
Is it data-sensitive? Again, without knowing much about the app it's hard to know whether this is useful, but assuming it's processing a lot of data, can you use a binary search to find a relatively small amount of data which causes the problem?
Does it have to be multi-threaded? If you can remove all the threading, obviously that may well then take much longer to reproduce the problem - but does it still happen at all?
Try removing bits of business logic: if your app is componentized appropriately, you can probably fake out whole significant components by first creating a stub implementation, and then simply removing the calls.
All of this will gradually reduce the size of the app until it's more manageable. At each step, you'll need to run the app again until it either crashes or you're convinced it won't crash. If you have a lot of machines available to you, that should help...
tl;dr Make sure you're compiling to .Net 4.5
This sounds suspiciously like the same error found here. From the MSDN page:
This bug can be encountered when the Garbage Collector is freeing and compacting memory. The error can happen when the Concurrent Garbage Collection is enabled and a certain combination of foreground Garbage Collection and background Garbage Collection occurs. When this situation happens you will see the same call stack over and over. On the heap you will see one free object and before it ends you will see another free object corrupting the heap.
The fix is to compile to .Net 4.5. If for some reason you can't do this, you can also disable concurrent garbage collection by disabling gcConcurrent in the app.config file:
<configuration>
<runtime>
<gcConcurrent enabled="false"/>
</runtime>
</configuration>
Or just compile to x86.
WinDbg is your friend:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tess/archive/2006/02/09/net-crash-managed-heap-corruption-calling-unmanaged-code.aspx
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/23589/Get-Started-Debugging-Memory-Related-Issues-in-Net
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/22245/Quick-start-to-using-WinDbg
Download Debug Diagnostic Tool v1.2
Run program
Add Rule "Crash"
Select "Specific Process"
on page Advanced Configuration set your exception if you know on which exception it fails or just leave this page as is
Set userdump location
Now wait for process to crash, log file is created by DebugDiag. Now activate tab Advanced Analysis, select Crash/Hang Analyzers in top list and dump file in lower list and hit Start Analysis. This will generate html report for you. Hopes you found usefull info in that report. If you have problem with analyze, upload html report somewhere and place url here so we can focus on it.
My app does not invoke any native code, or use any unsafe blocks, or
even any non-CLS compliant types like uint
You may think this, but threading, synchronization via semaphore, mutex it any handles all are native. .net is a layer over operating system, .net itself does not support pure clr code for multithreading apps, this is because OS already does it.
Most likely this is thread synchronization error. Probably multiple threads are trying to access shared resource like file etc that is outside clr boundary.
You may think you aren't accessing com etc, but when you call certain API like get desktop folder path etc it is called through shell com API.
You have following two options,
Publish your code so that we can review the bottleneck
Redesign your app using .net parallel threading framework, which includes variety of algorithms requiring CPU intensive operations.
Most likely programs fail after certain period of time as collections grow up and operations fail to execute before other thread interfere. For example, producer consumer problem, you will not notice any problem till producer will become slower or fail to finish its operation before consumer kicks in.
Bug in clr is rare, because clr is very stable. But poorly written code may lead error to appear as bug in clr. Clr can not and will never detect whether the bug is in your code or in clr itself.
Did you run a memory test for your machine as the one time I had comparable symptoms one of my dimms turned out to be faulty (a very good memorytester is included in Win7; http://www.tomstricks.com/how-to-test-your-ram-or-memory-with-windows-memory-diagnostic-tool-in-windows-7/)
It might also be a heating/throttling issue if your CPU gets too hot after this period of time. Although that would happen sooner imho.
There should be a dumpfile that you can analyze. If you never did this find someone who did, or send that to microsoft
I will suggest you open a support case via http://support.microsoft.com immediately, as the support guys can show you how to collect the necessary information.
Generally speaking, like #paulsm4 and #psulek said, you can utilize WinDbg or Debug Diag to capture crash dumps of the process, and within it, all necessary information is embedded. However, if this is the very first time you use those tools, you might be puzzled. Microsoft support team can provide you step by step guidance on them, or they can even set up a Live Meeting session with you to capture the data, as the program crashes so often.
Once you are familiar with the tools, in the future you can perform similar troubleshooting more easily,
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lexli/archive/2009/08/23/when-the-application-program-crashes-on-windows.aspx
BTW, it is too early to say "I've found a bug". Though you cannot obviously find in your program a dependency on native code, it might still have a dependency on native code. We should not draw a conclusion before debugging further into the issue.
Ok so I am running tests in WatiN and I am using the SendKeys method. According to the MSDN website I can enter:
System.Windows.Forms.SendKeys.SendWait("{LEFT 2}");
And this will enter left two times. This however does not work, I believe because the application needs time between each keypress. I order to do what I need the program to do I used Thread.Sleep between each keypress to ensure they were getting read. Is there a more efficient/proper way to do this? This is my current method code:
System.Windows.Forms.SendKeys.SendWait("{LEFT}");
Thread.Sleep(500);
System.Windows.Forms.SendKeys.SendWait("{LEFT}");
Thread.Sleep(500);
System.Windows.Forms.SendKeys.SendWait("{ENTER}");
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is. According to MSDN there are timing issues with SendKeys:
The SendKeys class is susceptible to timing issues, which some
developers have had to work around. The updated implementation is
still susceptible to timing issues, but is slightly faster and may
require changes to the workarounds.
The SendKeys class tries to use
the previous implementation first, and if that fails, uses the new
implementation.
As a result, the SendKeys class may behave differently
on different operating systems. Additionally, when the SendKeys class
uses the new implementation, the SendWait method will not wait for
messages to be processed when they are sent to another process. If
your application relies on consistent behavior regardless of the
operating system, you can force the SendKeys class to use the new
implementation by adding the following application setting to your
app.config file.
<appSettings>
<add key="SendKeys" value="SendInput"/>
</appSettings>
To force the SendKeys class to use the previous implementation, use the value "JournalHook" instead.
You could try changing between implementations to see if there is a change in your results.
Alternately, according to this post just using Thread.Sleep(0); after your input should work. Not the most elegant solution but if it works it would be faster than a 500ms pause.
Is there any way to hide a C# program from the Windows Task Manager?
EDIT:
Thanks for the overwhelming response! Well I didn't intend to do something spooky. Just wanted to win a bet with my friend that I can do it without him noticing. And I'm not a geek myself to be able to write a rootkit, as someone suggested though I'd love to know how to do it.
Not that I'm aware of - and there shouldn't be. The point of the task manager is to allow users to examine processes etc.
If the user should be able to do that, they should be able to find your program. If they shouldn't be poking around in Task Manager, group policy should prevent that - not your program.
Don't mean to zombie this but i thought i could contribute some useful information
If you want to hide a application there a two methods (that i can think of atm).
They both have their ups and downs
[1] SSDT Table hooking - basically you have to set the MDL of the table to writeable, overwrite the address of NtQuerySystemInformation (iirc) with the address of your function and have it call the original function after filtering the results.
This method doesn't suit your needs very well because the hooking function would always need to be in memory and would involve writing a kernel mode driver. Its a fun thing to do but debugging is a pain because an exception means a BSOD.
[2] Direct Kernel Object Manipulation (DKOM) - the list of processes is a doubly linked list, with a kernel mode driver you can alter the pointers of the records above and below your process to point around yours. This still requires the use of a kernel mode driver but there are rootkits such as FU that can be easily downloaded that contain an exe and the service. The exe could be called from inside your application as a child process (in the released version of FU, at least the one I found, there was a bug which I had to fix where if the hidden application exited the computer would BSOD, it was a trivial fix).
This will thankfully be caught by almost any decent antivirus so if you are trying to do something sneaky you'll have to learn to get around that (hint: they use a binary signature)
I have not used method 1 ever but method 2 has worked for me from a VB.Net application.
A third possible option is to just create the application as a windows service, this will show up in task manager by default but I'm willing to bet that there is a way to tell it to not show up there since there are plenty of other services which don't show up in task manager.
Hope I helped a little, my advice is that if you are interested in this kind of stuff to learn C++.
You could make your program a service and then it would appear as "svchost". There's a little more to it than that, but that should give you a hint to go in the right direction.
I'm not aware of any way to hide it from the task manager, but you could just disguise it by making it show up as "svchost.exe". It'll get lumped in with all the others (there's usually several), and will become indistinguishable.
You shouldn't hide it, but you could prevent the user from killing the process.
See Chris Smith's answer to this question.