I have a timer and a background worker, which initiates on every timer tick. Sometimes I need for user to stop this workflow and call that same bg worker from a button click.
Since it is in Silverlight it is all async. BG worker make async Webservice call, which asynchronously returns data.
I have done this, but it just feels wrong. What are best ways to handle that kind of situation?
button_click_event(..)
{
_loadTimer.Stop();
_worker.CancelAsync();
_worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
WebService call
public void GetUserStats(DateTime start, DateTime end, Action<IEnumerable<IUserStats>, Exception> callback)
{
_context.GetUserStatsCompleted += ContextGetUserStatsCompleted;
_context.GetUserStatsAsync(start,end,callback);
}
void ContextGetUserStatsCompleted(object sender, GetUserStatsCompletedEventArgs e)
{
var callback = e.UserState as Action<IEnumerable<IUserStats>, Exception>;
Exception error = null;
var result = new ObservableCollection<IUserStats>();
if (e.Error == null)
{
result = e.Result;
}
else
{
error = e.Error;
}
_context.GetUserStatsCompleted -= ContextGetUserStatsCompleted;
callback(result, error);
}
and my worker
void WorkerDoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
TicketService.GetUserStats(StartDate, EndDate, (result, error) =>
{
StreamHolder = result;
});
}
Firs of all, you should always check to see if your worker is running, prior to attempting to run it again. If you don't then it's possible that your application will throw an exception.
if(!_worker.IsBusy)
{
_worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
Second of all, just calling CancelAsync() is not enough to cancel the current operation of the background worker. You will have to add code to the background worker's DoWork event handler. (In your case WorkerDoWork)
if(_worker.CancelationPending == true)
{
e.Cancel = true;
return;
}
You can read more about the proper way to use a background worker here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=vs.95).aspx
Related
I want to abort the process but not able to do so, I am using Background worker with my functions of processing.
public void Init()
{
bw = new BackgroundWorker();
bw.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
bw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bw_DoWork);
bw.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(bw_RunWorkerCompleted);
}
void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
if (bw.CancellationPending == true)
{
e.Cancel = true;
}
else
{
e.Result = abd();
}
}
void bw_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if(e.Cancelled)
{
lbltext.content="Canceled";
}
else
{
lbltext.content="Completed";
}
}
private void btncan_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
bw.CancelAsync();
}
private void btnstart_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
I am not able to abort the process using this code.
Function abd() is performing the processing part and returning the result.
Please provide me any solution.
Thanks.
When you call bw.CancelAsync() you just set CancellationPending flag to true. It does not cancels something by default. You need to handle pending cancellation manually. But you can't do that with your code, because when you click button, there are three possible options:
Long-running abd() method finished it's work and there is nothing to cancel
abd() started it's work, and background worker is blocked - it's waiting for results of abd(), then it continues execution - i.e. exits if-else block and raises RunWorkerCompleted event.
Nearly impossible option - you will be fast as light, and you will click button before if-else block entered. Than CancellationPending will be true, and abd() will not start execution
If you want to use cancellation, then do your long-running task in a loop, and check if cancellation is pending on each step:
void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
List<Foo> results = new List<Foo>();
// any loop here - foreach, while
for(int i = 0; i < steps_count; i++)
{
// check status on each step
if (bw.CancellationPending == true)
{
e.Cancel = true;
return; // abort work, if it's cancelled
}
results.Add(abd()); // add part of results
}
e.Result = results; // return all results
}
Probably DoWork may have finished its work before calling CancelAsync and as mentioned in the docs e.Cancelled may be false..
Docs say this
Be aware that your code in the DoWork event handler may finish its
work as a cancellation request is being made, and your polling loop
may miss CancellationPending being set to true. In this case, the
Cancelled flag of System.ComponentModel.RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs in
your RunWorkerCompleted event handler will not be set to true, even
though a cancellation request was made. This situation is called a
race condition and is a common concern in multithreaded programming.
How about the following?
While(!bw.CancellationPending)
{
//do some work!
}
e.Cancel = true;
is there any way to stop backgroundWorker thread without cancellationPending?
I have code like this:
DoWorkFunction
{
if(worker.cancellationPending == true) return; //this works great but
VeryLongTimeComputingFunc();//this function take a lot of time and if it starts i can't stop it with cancellationPending
...Do something
}
Is there any way to stop worker even if it started VeryLongTimeComputingFunc()?
Maybe you could fire an "CancelWorker" event in your "VeryLongTimeComputingFunc" and in the EventHandler you stop the BackgroundWorker with "worker.CancelAsync()".
This should work:
class BackgroundClass
{
public event EventHandler CancelWorker;
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
BackgroundClass()
{
CancelWorker += new EventHandler(BackgroundClass_CancelWorker);
}
void BackgroundClass_CancelWorker(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
worker.CancelAsync();
}
void RunBackgroundWorker()
{
worker.DoWork += (sender, args) =>
{
VeryLongTimeComputingFunction();
};
}
void VeryLongTimeComputingFunction()
{
if (CancelWorker != null)
{
CancelWorker(this, new EventArgs());
}
}
}
This would require that you can change something in the "VeryLongTimeComputingFunction()"
Assuming you can not add proper cancellation support inside VeryLongTimeComputingFunction, your best option is to save a reference to the BGW's thread and call Abort on it.
Keep in mind this is not generally recommended as it may involve a messy cleanup.
To be safe, you should catch any ThreadAbortedException raised in your long function.
private Thread bgThread;
void DoWorkFunction()
{
bgThread = Thread.CurrentThread;
try
{
VeryLongTimeComputingFunc();
}
catch (ThreadAbortedException e)
{
//do any necessary cleanup work.
bgThread = null;
}
}
void CancelBGW()
{
if (bgThread != null)
{
bgThread.Abort();
}
}
Depending on when and how CancelBGW is called, you may also need a lock around assignments of bgThread.
I've an existing WPF application, which has several sections. Every section is a UserControl, that implements an interface.
The interface specify two methods: void LoadData([...]) and bool UnloadData().
Those method are called by the UI thread, so we need to do our work in backgroundworker if it's time consuming.
No problems with LoadData since we can update the UI asynchronously. The problem is with UnloadData().
This should return if we can really leave the current view.
This is computed with the current status of data(Saved/modified/Invalid):
Saved return true,
Invalid asks if you want to stay to save some
correct data or leave without saving
Modified tell you that you can
either cancel your change(return true), either continue to
edit(return false), either save you current data(return true)
The problem is with the "Modified -> Save". This is a time consuming method, so to respect the philosophy of the application, we should run this in a background thread(with a busy indicator).
But if we just launch the thread and go to the next section, it will return "true" to the method call, and we will directly launch the next view.
In my case, loading the next view before our local data is saved can be a problem.
So:
Is there a way to wait on the background thread to finish before returning "true", WITHOUT blocking the UI?
public bool UnloadData(){
if(...){
LaunchMyTimeConsumingMethodWithBackgroundWorker();
return true;//Only when my time consuming method ends
}
//[...]
}
Important EDIT
Maybe I wasn't clear enought: I know how to use a BackgroundWorker, or TPL. My problem is that the parent class(the one which call the UnloadData()" is a class that I cannot edit(for multiple reasons: It's in another DLL that will not be reloaded, it already works with 70+ userControls, all in separate projects(dll), loaded by reflection.
This wasn't my choice, I don't find it good, but I've to deal with it now. I'm mostly looking for way to make my method wait on the return of my method. I'm not sure if it is possible. But I'm looking for a workaround, it will spare me weeks of works.
Ok now I'm excited, because I think I may have discovered something on my own...
So, what you do is this: You create a DispatcherFrame, push that frame onto the Dispatcher, and in the RunWorkerCompleted you set the Continue of the Frame to false.
This is the code so far:
public void Function()
{
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += TimeConsumingFunction;
var frame = new DispatcherFrame();
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, args) =>
{
frame.Continue = false;
};
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
Dispatcher.PushFrame(frame);
}
private void TimeConsumingFunction(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs doWorkEventArgs)
{
Console.WriteLine("Entering");
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
Console.WriteLine("Exiting");
}
private void ButtonBase_OnClick(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Function();
Console.WriteLine("Returns");
}
You should implement a dependency property "IsBusy" of type bool, that you set to TRUE before starting the BackgoundWorker, and then to FALSE when the work is complete.
On the UI, you bind to that property whatever functionality you want disabled during the processing(like the button for loading the next view, etc.); or maybe showing a "Cancel" button.
You should not "wait" for the operation to complete, you can retrieve the result in an additional variable, that the BackgroundWorker will set:
BackgroundWorker _bw;
bool _returnValue = false;
private void button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{ // if starting the processing by clicking a button
_bw = new BackgroundWorker();
IsBusy = true;
_bw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(_bw_DoWork);
_bw.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(_bw_RunWorkerCompleted);
_bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void _bw_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
IsBusy = false;
// retrieve the result of the operation in the _returnValue variable
}
void _bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
_returnValue = UnloadData();
}
private bool UnloadData()
{
if (...)
{
LaunchTimeConsumingMethod();
return true;
}
else
return false;
//etc ...
}
public bool IsBusy
{
get { return (bool)GetValue(IsBusyProperty); }
set { SetValue(IsBusyProperty, value); }
}
// Using a DependencyProperty as the backing store for IsBusy. This enables animation, styling, binding, etc...
public static readonly DependencyProperty IsBusyProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register( ... )
You may be able to try using the new "await" features of .NET 4.5.
The await keyword allows you to await the completion of a Task object, without blocking the UI.
Try this modification:
public async bool UnloadData()
{
if(...)
{
await Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
LaunchMyTimeConsumingMethod();
});
return true;//Only when my time consuming method ends
}
//[...]
}
Treat UnloadData as a async operation and let the async/await features handle both the case when it completes synchronously and when it needs to complete asynchronously:
public async Task<bool> UnloadData(){
if(...){
// The await keyword will segment your method execution and post the continuation in the UI thread
// The Task.Factory.StartNew will run the time consuming method in the ThreadPool
await Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>LaunchMyTimeConsumingMethodWithBackgroundWorker());
// The return statement is the continuation and will run in the UI thread after the consuming method is executed
return true;
}
// If it came down this path, the execution is synchronous and is completely run in the UI thread
return false;
}
private async void button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
// Put here your logic to prevent user interaction during the operation's execution.
// Ex: this.mainPanel.IsEnabled = false;
// Or: this.modalPanel.Visibility = Visible;
// etc
try
{
bool result = await this.UnloadData();
// Do whatever with the result
}
finally
{
// Reenable the user interaction
// Ex: this.mainPanel.IsEnabled = true;
}
}
EDIT
If you can't modify the UnloadData, then just execute it on the ThreadPool, as #BTownTKD noted:
private async void button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
// Put here your logic to prevent user interaction during the operation's execution.
// Ex: this.mainPanel.IsEnabled = false;
// Or: this.modalPanel.Visibility = Visible;
// etc
try
{
// The await keyword will segment your method execution and post the continuation in the UI thread
// The Task.Factory.StartNew will run the time consuming method in the ThreadPool, whether it takes the long or the short path
bool result = await The Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>this.UnloadData());
// Do whatever with the result
}
finally
{
// Reenable the user interaction
// Ex: this.mainPanel.IsEnabled = true;
}
}
You probably should use TPL if your framework version is 4.0:
var uiScheduler = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext(); // this will work only if you're running this code from UI thread, for example, by clicking a button
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => UnloadData()).ContinueWith(t => /*update ui using t.Result here*/, uiScheduler);
Hope this helps.
You have to implement a callback function (RunWorkerCompleted), this is called when the background worker finishes.
Check out an example here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=vs.95).aspx
Somehow I cannot believe that I am the first one to run into that problem (and I don't want to believe that I am the only one stupid enough not to see a solution directly), but my search-fu was not strong enough.
I regularly run into a situation, when I need to do a few time-consuming steps one after the other. The workflow looks like
var data = DataGetter.GetData();
var processedData = DataProcessor.Process(data);
var userDecision = DialogService.AskUserAbout(processedData);
// ...
I don't want to block the UI during each step, so every method does return immediately, and raises an event once it has finished. Now hilarity ensues, since the above code block mutates into
DataGetter.Finished += (data) =>
{
DataProcessor.Finished += (processedData) =>
{
DialogService.Finished(userDecision) =>
{
// ....
}
DialogService.AskUserAbout(processedData);
}
DataProcessor.Process(data);
};
DataGetter.GetData();
This reads too much like Continuation-passing style for my taste, and there has to be a better way to structure this code. But how?
The correct way would be to design your components in a synchronous way and execute the complete chain in a background thread.
The Task Parallel Library can be useful for such code. Note that TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() can be used to run the task on the UI thread.
Task<Data>.Factory.StartNew(() => GetData())
.ContinueWith(t => Process(t.Result))
.ContinueWith(t => AskUserAbout(t.Result), TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
You can put everything into a BackgroundWorker. The following code would only work properly if you change the methods GetData, Process, and AskUserAbout to run synchronously.
Something like this:
private BackgroundWorker m_worker;
private void StartWorking()
{
if (m_worker != null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("The worker is already doing something");
m_worker = new BackgroundWorker();
m_worker.CanRaiseEvents = true;
m_worker.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
m_worker.ProgressChanged += worker_ProgressChanged;
m_worker.DoWork += worker_Work;
m_worker.RunWorkerCompleted += worker_Completed;
}
private void worker_Work(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs args)
{
m_worker.ReportProgress(0, "Getting the data...");
var data = DataGetter.GetData();
m_worker.ReportProgress(33, "Processing the data...");
var processedData = DataProcessor.Process(data);
// if this interacts with the GUI, this should be run in the GUI thread.
// use InvokeRequired/BeginInvoke, or change so this question is asked
// in the Completed handler. it's safe to interact with the GUI there,
// and in the ProgressChanged handler.
m_worker.ReportProgress(67, "Waiting for user decision...");
var userDecision = DialogService.AskUserAbout(processedData);
m_worker.ReportProgress(100, "Finished.");
args.Result = userDecision;
}
private void worker_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs args)
{
// this gets passed down from the m_worker.ReportProgress() call
int percent = args.ProgressPercentage;
string progressMessage = (string)args.UserState;
// show the progress somewhere. you can interact with the GUI safely here.
}
private void worker_Completed(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs args)
{
if (args.Error != null)
{
// handle the error
}
else if (args.Cancelled)
{
// handle the cancellation
}
else
{
// the work is finished! the result is in args.Result
}
}
I have UI which displaying status of long-running operations (downloading some text files from ftp) . For my purposes I use backgroundworker and I can't cancel operation.
void worker_DoWork( object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e )
{
try
{
int rowIndex = (int)e.Argument;
//begin UI update
StartWaitingBar(rowIndex);
//get provider id cell
GridViewDataRowInfo row = _proivderGridView.Rows[rowIndex];
GridViewCellInfo provIdCell = row.Cells[ "ProviderId" ];
var providerData = GetProviderData(Convert.ToInt32( provIdCell.Value));
var provider = ProviderFactory.CreateProvider(providerData);
provider.Synchronize();
e.Result = rowIndex;
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
return;
}
}
And code for worker creation:
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += worker_DoWork;
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += worker_RunWorkerCompleted;
worker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
worker.RunWorkerAsync(args.RowIndex);
_syncWorkers.Add(providerId,worker);
...
var worker = _syncWorkers[providerId];
if(worker.IsBusy)
{
worker.CancelAsync();
}
else
{
worker.RunWorkerAsync(args.RowIndex);
}
Solution provided here seems not working for me beacuse it works for recurring operations (for which background worker is created, I suppose). Do I have to use threads(abort and join) for my purposes because I should provide possibilities for user to cancel long-running operation?
Need your advice.
Thanks in advance.
You cannot use Backgroundworker.CancelAsync() to cancel a long running I/O action. Like rifnl answered, the DoWork has to check worker.CancellationPending and set e.Cancel.
But you shouldn't use Thread.Abort() either. It could destabilize your process.
The solution you need has to come from provider.Synchronize(); somehow.
PS: and catch { return; } is horrible. Remove the entire try/catch and let the Bgw handle exceptions.
You've got to check e.Cancel within your DoWork method, which is missing from your code-snippet, but you've got to change your download method to an async call too, you're calling the method and wait for the answer within the dowork. Which is possible, but it won't check for the cancel flag in mean time.
Check the solution you posted (line 3):
void worker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
while(!e.Cancel)
{
// do something
}
_resetEvent.Set(); // signal that worker is done
}