Develop Reference

Return data from long running Task on demand

I want to create a Task, which may run for many minutes, collecting data via an API call to another system. At some point in the future I need to stop the task and return the collected data. This future point is unknown at the time of starting the task.
I have read many question about returning data from tasks, but I can't find any that answer this scenario. I may be missing a trick, but all of the examples actually seem to wait in the man thread for the task to finish before continuing. This seems counter-intuitive, surely the purpose of a task is to hand off an activity whilst continuing with other activities in your main thread?
Here is one of those many examples, taken from DotNetPearls..
namespace TaskBasedAsynchronousProgramming
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Main Thread Started");
Task<double> task1 = Task.Run(() =>
{
return CalculateSum(10);
});
Console.WriteLine($"Sum is: {task1.Result}");
Console.WriteLine($"Main Thread Completed");
Console.ReadKey();
}
static double CalculateSum(int num)
{
double sum = 0;
for (int count = 1; count <= num; count++)
{
sum += count;
}
return sum;
}
}
}
Is it possible to do what I need, and have a long-running task running in parallel, stop it and return the data at an arbitrary future point?

Here is a sample application how you can do that:
static double partialResult = -1;
static void Main()
{
CancellationTokenSource calculationEndSignal = new(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(3));
Task meaningOfLife = Task.Run(() =>
GetTheMeaningOfLife(calculationEndSignal.Token),
calculationEndSignal.Token);
calculationEndSignal.Token.Register(() => Console.WriteLine(partialResult));
Console.ReadLine();
}
static async Task GetTheMeaningOfLife(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
foreach (var semiResult in Enumerable.Range(1, 42))
{
partialResult = semiResult;
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
partialResult is a shared variable between the two threads
The worker thread (GetTheMeaningOfLife) only writes it
The main thread (Main) only reads it
The read operation is performed only after the Task has been cancelled
calculationEndSignal is used to cancel the long-running operation
I've have specified a timeout, but you can call the Cancel method if you want
meaningOfLife is the Task which represents the long-running operation call
I have passed the CancellationToken to the GetTheMeaningOfLife and to the Task.Run as well
For this very simple example the Task.Run should not need to receive the token but it is generally a good practice to pass there as well
Register is receiving a callback which should be called after the token is cancelled
ReadLine can be any other computation
I've used ReadLine to keep the application running
GetTheMeaningOfLife simply increments the partialResult shared variable
either until it reaches the meaning of life
or until it is cancelled

Here is one approach. It features a CancellationTokenSource that is used as a stopping mechanism, instead of its normal usage as a cancellation mechanism. That's because you want to get the partial results, and a canceled Task does not propagate results:
CancellationTokenSource stoppingTokenSource = new();
Task<List<int>> longRunningTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
List<int> list = new();
for (int i = 1; i <= 60; i++)
{
if (stoppingTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested) break;
// Simulate a synchronous operation that has 1 second duration.
Thread.Sleep(1000);
list.Add(i);
}
return list;
});
Then, somewhere else in your program, you can send a stopping signal to the task, and then await asynchronously until the task acknowledges the signal and completes successfully. The await will also propagate the partial results:
stoppingTokenSource.Cancel();
List<int> partialResults = await longRunningTask;
Or, if you are not in an asynchronous workflow, you can wait synchronously until the partial results are available:
stoppingTokenSource.Cancel();
List<int> partialResults = longRunningTask.Result;

C# - Wait for Task with return value

I want to have a code block, which should be executed with a maximum time limit. If the functions hangs, it should be aborted.
From this question I adapted the following solution:
public static void ExecuteWithTimeLimit(int timeLimit_milliseconds, Func<bool> codeBlock)
{
Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
codeBlock();
});
task.Wait(timeLimit_milliseconds);
}
This works as I want it to behave: If the code codeBlock hangs and takes to long, the task is aborted.
However, I want the Task to have a return value so I can use task.Result. If I implement this into the code, it doesn't work any more.
In fact, the task is not cancled and the GUI freezes completly.
public static void ExecuteWithTimeLimit(int timeLimit_milliseconds, Func<bool> codeBlock)
{
Task<bool> task = Task<bool>.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
return codeBlock();
});
task.Wait(timeLimit_milliseconds);
}
What is the correct way to execute Methods with a return value with a maximum time limit?

I would recommend creating a task method and using await. This will release the thread so application doesn't lock up, and once result is available it will jump back into that thread Here is an example:
public async Task MyMethodAsync()
{
Task<string> longRunningTask = LongRunningOperationAsync();
// independent work which doesn't need the result of LongRunningOperationAsync can be done here
//and now we call await on the task
string result = await longRunningTask;
//use the result
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
public async Task<string> LongRunningOperationAsync() // assume we return an int from this long running operation
{
//Perform your task in here
await Task.Delay(5000); // 5 second delay to show how it releases thread
return "Task Complete";
}

There's a lot of mucking around with cancellation tokens with tasks. I'd suggest making your life easier and use Microsoft's Reactive Framework (aka Rx) - NuGet System.Reactive and add using System.Reactive.Linq; - then you can do this:
public static async Task<bool> ExecuteWithTimeLimit(TimeSpan timeLimit, Func<bool> codeBlock)
=> await Observable.Amb(
Observable.Timer(timeLimit).Select(_ => false),
Observable.Start(() => codeBlock()));
Observable.Amb takes 2 or more observables and only returns values from whichever observable fires first. Observable.Timer fires a single value after the TimeSpan provided. Observable.Start executes what ever code and returns a single value that is the result of that code.
Effectively Amb is a race between the timer and the code.
Now I can run it like this:
Task<bool> task =
ExecuteWithTimeLimit(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1.0), () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("!");
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2.0));
Console.WriteLine("!!");
return true;
});
task.Wait();
Console.WriteLine(task.Result);
When I run that I get this on the console:
!
False
!!
If I change the timeLimit to TimeSpan.FromSeconds(3.0) then I get this:
!
!!
True

Actually I found a solution by canceling the task after the time limit:
public static void ExecuteWithTimeLimit(int timeLimit_milliseconds, Func<bool> codeBlock)
{
var cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var cancellationToken = cancellationTokenSource.Token;
Task<bool> task = Task<bool>.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
return codeBlock();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.Message, "Exeption", MessageBoxButton.OK, MessageBoxImage.Error);
return false;
}
}, cancellationToken);
task.Wait(timeLimit_milliseconds);
cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
}

Pausing a task within Task.Factory.StartNew

In my Asp.Net MVC 5 project I have a ~3 minute task that I pass to Task.Factory.StartNew().
I would like to pause the task from within the task if there is a validation issue in one of the steps of my code running in the task. I don't want to delay it async because the rest of the task will continue to run, which can't happen.
Could I use thread.sleep() without any repercussions since I'm within a task? I read that I may have to use TaskScheduler.Default to have the Task.Factory create a new thread for each task.
I'm using a PauseToken similar to a CancellationToken so I'll be able to resume the task or cancel this task based on user input.
Multithreading really scares me, and I don't want to overlook something.
Here is an example of the Thread.Sleep implementation:
public void WaitIfPaused(PauseToken pauseToken, CancellationToken cancellationToken, IProgressBar progressBar)
{
//TODO: If paused for an hour notify user via noty and abort the task to keep it from completing by cancellation via cancellationToken.
//wait for 1 hour
for (int i = 0; i < 3600; i++)
{
ThrowExceptionIfCancelled(cancellationToken, progressBar);
if (pauseToken.IsPaused)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
else
{
break;
}
}
}
PauseToken: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2013/01/13/cooperatively-pausing-async-methods.aspx
Requested: Implementation of task structure in shared code library.
public void StartTask(params object[] data)
{
//throw an exception if no ITask was found
if (_taskToRun == null)
throw new Exception("Task cannot be null");
//set up task cancellation
CancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var cancellationToken = CancellationTokenSource.Token;
//set up task pausing
PauseTokenSource = new PauseTokenSource();
var pauseToken = PauseTokenSource.Token;
//start a new task using the Task that was set
_task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _taskToRun.Execute(cancellationToken, pauseToken, data), cancellationToken);
}
My Execute method that is invoked by _taskToRun.Execute:
Public override void Execute(CancellationToken cancellationToken, PauseToken pauseToken, params object[] data)
{
var managerList = (List<IFileManager>) data[0];
var instr = (List<InstructionSet>) data[1];
ProcessInstructions(managerList, instr, cancellationToken, pauseToken);
}
Update due to comments:
Code example: 3 instructions
For(var instruction in instructions)
{
instruction.Execute();
}
In my execute method I run into a scenario for pause and call WaitWhilePausedAsync from within the execute. It will continue to execute the other two instructions, but pause the only the current instructions execute method.
Edit: By awaiting instruction.Execute() it will wait until instruction.Execute() completes or is unpaused.
Final Edit:
I was able to resolve the issue by awaiting the Execute method and making it async like Servy and I3arnon suggested.
Final Code Sample:
foreach(var instruction in instructions)
{
try
{
await instruction.Execute(pauseToken);
}
catch(InvalidOperationException)
{
pauseTokenSource.IsPaused = true;
//ask if user wants to cancel or resume.
}
}
//Simplified
public async Task<bool> Execute(PauseToken pauseToken)
{
await pauseToken.WaitWhilePausedAsync();
//do work
}

You can safely use Thread.Sleep. The only drawback is that the thread would be wasted blocking synchronously.
You should be using await Task.Delay(1000) instead. The code after that line would not execute until the wait is complete, but you won't be wasting a thread in the meantime:
public async Task WaitIfPausedAsync(PauseToken pauseToken, CancellationToken cancellationToken, IProgressBar progressBar)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 3600; i++)
{
ThrowExceptionIfCancelled(cancellationToken, progressBar);
if (pauseToken.IsPaused)
{
await Task.Delay(1000)
}
else
{
break;
}
}
}
Edit: I was unaware of PauseToken.WaitWhilePausedAsync. You should definitly use that instead of replicating that yourself with polling over PauseToken.IsPaused

c# do the equivalent of restarting a Task with some parameter

The main idea here is to fetch some data from somewhere, when it's fetched start writing it, and then prepare the next batch of data to be written, while waiting for the previous write to be complete.
I know that a Task cannot be restarted or reused (nor should it be), although I am trying to find a way to do something like this :
//The "WriteTargetData" method should take the "data" variable
//created in the loop below as a parameter
//WriteData basically do a shedload of mongodb upserts in a separate thread,
//it takes approx. 20-30 secs to run
var task = new Task(() => WriteData(somedata));
//GetData also takes some time.
foreach (var data in queries.Select(GetData))
{
if (task.Status != TaskStatus.Running)
{
//start task with "data" as a parameter
//continue the loop to prepare the next batch of data to be written
}
else
{
//wait for task to be completed
//"restart" task
//continue the loop to prepare the next batch of data to be written
}
}
Any suggestion appreciated ! Thanks. I don't necessarily want to use Task, I just think it might be the way to go.

This may be over simplifying your requirements, but would simply "waiting" for the previous task to complete work for you? You can use Task.WaitAny and Task.WaitAll to wait for previous operations to complete.
pseudo code:
// Method that makes calls to fetch and write data.
public async Task DoStuff()
{
Task currTask = null;
object somedata = await FetchData();
while (somedata != null)
{
// Wait for previous task.
if (currTask != null)
Task.WaitAny(currTask);
currTask = WriteData(somedata);
somedata = await FetchData();
}
}
// Whatever method fetches data.
public Task<object> FetchData()
{
var data = new object();
return Task.FromResult(data);
}
// Whatever method writes data.
public Task WriteData(object somedata)
{
return Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { /* write data */});
}

The Task class is not designed to be restarted. so you Need to create a new task and run the body with the same Parameters. Next i do not see where you start the task with the WriteData function in its body. That will property Eliminate the call of if (task.Status != TaskStatus.Running) There are AFAIK only the class Task and Thread where task is only the abstraction of an action that will be scheduled with the TaskScheduler and executed in different threads ( when we talking about the Common task Scheduler, the one you get when you call TaskFactory.Scheduler ) and the Number of the Threads are equal to the number of Processor Cores.
To you Business App. Why do you wait for the execution of WriteData? Would it be not a lot more easy to gater all data and than submit them into one big Write?

something like ?
public void Do()
{
var task = StartTask(500);
var array = new[] {1000, 2000, 3000};
foreach (var data in array)
{
if (task.IsCompleted)
{
task = StartTask(data);
}
else
{
task.Wait();
task = StartTask(data);
}
}
}
private Task StartTask(int data)
{
var task = new Task(DoSmth, data);
task.Start();
return task;
}
private void DoSmth(object time)
{
Thread.Sleep((int) time);
}

You can use a thread and an AutoResetEvent. I have code like this for several different threads in my program:
These are variable declarations that belong to the main program.
public AutoResetEvent StartTask = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public bool IsStopping = false;
public Thread RepeatingTaskThread;
Somewhere in your initialization code:
RepeatingTaskThread = new Thread( new ThreadStart( RepeatingTaskProcessor ) ) { IsBackground = true; };
RepeatingTaskThread.Start();
Then the method that runs the repeating task would look something like this:
private void RepeatingTaskProcessor() {
// Keep looping until the program is going down.
while (!IsStopping) {
// Wait to receive notification that there's something to process.
StartTask.WaitOne();
// Exit if the program is stopping now.
if (IsStopping) return;
// Execute your task
PerformTask();
}
}
If there are several different tasks you want to run, you can add a variable that would indicate which one to process and modify the logic in PerformTask to pick which one to run.
I know that it doesn't use the Task class, but there's more than one way to skin a cat & this will work.

Cancel Long Running task [duplicate]

In a thread, I create some System.Threading.Task and start each task.
When I do a .Abort() to kill the thread, the tasks are not aborted.
How can I transmit the .Abort() to my tasks ?

You can't. Tasks use background threads from the thread pool. Also canceling threads using the Abort method is not recommended. You may take a look at the following blog post which explains a proper way of canceling tasks using cancellation tokens. Here's an example:
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var ts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = ts.Token;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
// do some heavy work here
Thread.Sleep(100);
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// another thread decided to cancel
Console.WriteLine("task canceled");
break;
}
}
}, ct);
// Simulate waiting 3s for the task to complete
Thread.Sleep(3000);
// Can't wait anymore => cancel this task
ts.Cancel();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}

Like this post suggests, this can be done in the following way:
int Foo(CancellationToken token)
{
Thread t = Thread.CurrentThread;
using (token.Register(t.Abort))
{
// compute-bound work here
}
}
Although it works, it's not recommended to use such approach. If you can control the code that executes in task, you'd better go with proper handling of cancellation.

Aborting a Task is easily possible if you capture the thread in which the task is running in. Here is an example code to demonstrate this:
void Main()
{
Thread thread = null;
Task t = Task.Run(() =>
{
//Capture the thread
thread = Thread.CurrentThread;
//Simulate work (usually from 3rd party code)
Thread.Sleep(1000);
//If you comment out thread.Abort(), then this will be displayed
Console.WriteLine("Task finished!");
});
//This is needed in the example to avoid thread being still NULL
Thread.Sleep(10);
//Cancel the task by aborting the thread
thread.Abort();
}
I used Task.Run() to show the most common use-case for this - using the comfort of Tasks with old single-threaded code, which does not use the CancellationTokenSource class to determine if it should be canceled or not.

This sort of thing is one of the logistical reasons why Abort is deprecated. First and foremost, do not use Thread.Abort() to cancel or stop a thread if at all possible. Abort() should only be used to forcefully kill a thread that is not responding to more peaceful requests to stop in a timely fashion.
That being said, you need to provide a shared cancellation indicator that one thread sets and waits while the other thread periodically checks and gracefully exits. .NET 4 includes a structure designed specifically for this purpose, the CancellationToken.

I use a mixed approach to cancel a task.
Firstly, I'm trying to Cancel it politely with using the Cancellation.
If it's still running (e.g. due to a developer's mistake), then misbehave and kill it using an old-school Abort method.
Checkout an example below:
private CancellationTokenSource taskToken;
private AutoResetEvent awaitReplyOnRequestEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void Main()
{
// Start a task which is doing nothing but sleeps 1s
LaunchTaskAsync();
Thread.Sleep(100);
// Stop the task
StopTask();
}
/// <summary>
/// Launch task in a new thread
/// </summary>
void LaunchTaskAsync()
{
taskToken = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{ //Capture the thread
runningTaskThread = Thread.CurrentThread;
// Run the task
if (taskToken.IsCancellationRequested || !awaitReplyOnRequestEvent.WaitOne(10000))
return;
Console.WriteLine("Task finished!");
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
// Handle exception
}
}, taskToken.Token);
}
/// <summary>
/// Stop running task
/// </summary>
void StopTask()
{
// Attempt to cancel the task politely
if (taskToken != null)
{
if (taskToken.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
else
taskToken.Cancel();
}
// Notify a waiting thread that an event has occurred
if (awaitReplyOnRequestEvent != null)
awaitReplyOnRequestEvent.Set();
// If 1 sec later the task is still running, kill it cruelly
if (runningTaskThread != null)
{
try
{
runningTaskThread.Join(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
runningTaskThread.Abort();
}
}
}

To answer Prerak K's question about how to use CancellationTokens when not using an anonymous method in Task.Factory.StartNew(), you pass the CancellationToken as a parameter into the method you're starting with StartNew(), as shown in the MSDN example here.
e.g.
var tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = tokenSource.Token;
Task.Factory.StartNew( () => DoSomeWork(1, token), token);
static void DoSomeWork(int taskNum, CancellationToken ct)
{
// Do work here, checking and acting on ct.IsCancellationRequested where applicable,
}

You should not try to do this directly. Design your tasks to work with a CancellationToken, and cancel them this way.
In addition, I would recommend changing your main thread to function via a CancellationToken as well. Calling Thread.Abort() is a bad idea - it can lead to various problems that are very difficult to diagnose. Instead, that thread can use the same Cancellation that your tasks use - and the same CancellationTokenSource can be used to trigger the cancellation of all of your tasks and your main thread.
This will lead to a far simpler, and safer, design.

Tasks have first class support for cancellation via cancellation tokens. Create your tasks with cancellation tokens, and cancel the tasks via these explicitly.

You can use a CancellationToken to control whether the task gets cancelled. Are you talking about aborting it before it's started ("nevermind, I already did this"), or actually interrupting it in middle? If the former, the CancellationToken can be helpful; if the latter, you will probably need to implement your own "bail out" mechanism and check at appropriate points in the task execution whether you should fail fast (you can still use the CancellationToken to help you, but it's a little more manual).
MSDN has an article about cancelling Tasks:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997396.aspx

Task are being executed on the ThreadPool (at least, if you are using the default factory), so aborting the thread cannot affect the tasks. For aborting tasks, see Task Cancellation on msdn.

I tried CancellationTokenSource but i can't do this. And i did do this with my own way. And it works.
namespace Blokick.Provider
{
public class SignalRConnectProvider
{
public SignalRConnectProvider()
{
}
public bool IsStopRequested { get; set; } = false; //1-)This is important and default `false`.
public async Task<string> ConnectTab()
{
string messageText = "";
for (int count = 1; count < 20; count++)
{
if (count == 1)
{
//Do stuff.
}
try
{
//Do stuff.
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Do stuff.
}
if (IsStopRequested) //3-)This is important. The control of the task stopping request. Must be true and in inside.
{
return messageText = "Task stopped."; //4-) And so return and exit the code and task.
}
if (Connected)
{
//Do stuff.
}
if (count == 19)
{
//Do stuff.
}
}
return messageText;
}
}
}
And another class of the calling the method:
namespace Blokick.Views
{
[XamlCompilation(XamlCompilationOptions.Compile)]
public partial class MessagePerson : ContentPage
{
SignalRConnectProvider signalR = new SignalRConnectProvider();
public MessagePerson()
{
InitializeComponent();
signalR.IsStopRequested = true; // 2-) And this. Make true if running the task and go inside if statement of the IsStopRequested property.
if (signalR.ChatHubProxy != null)
{
signalR.Disconnect();
}
LoadSignalRMessage();
}
}
}

You can abort a task like a thread if you can cause the task to be created on its own thread and call Abort on its Thread object. By default, a task runs on a thread pool thread or the calling thread - neither of which you typically want to abort.
To ensure the task gets its own thread, create a custom scheduler derived from TaskScheduler. In your implementation of QueueTask, create a new thread and use it to execute the task. Later, you can abort the thread, which will cause the task to complete in a faulted state with a ThreadAbortException.
Use this task scheduler:
class SingleThreadTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
public Thread TaskThread { get; private set; }
protected override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
TaskThread = new Thread(() => TryExecuteTask(task));
TaskThread.Start();
}
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() => throw new NotSupportedException(); // Unused
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) => throw new NotSupportedException(); // Unused
}
Start your task like this:
var scheduler = new SingleThreadTaskScheduler();
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(action, cancellationToken, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, scheduler);
Later, you can abort with:
scheduler.TaskThread.Abort();
Note that the caveat about aborting a thread still applies:
The Thread.Abort method should be used with caution. Particularly when you call it to abort a thread other than the current thread, you do not know what code has executed or failed to execute when the ThreadAbortException is thrown, nor can you be certain of the state of your application or any application and user state that it is responsible for preserving. For example, calling Thread.Abort may prevent static constructors from executing or prevent the release of unmanaged resources.

You can use this class..:
It works for all typs of returned Values..
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace CarNUChargeTester
{
public class TimeOutTaskRunner<T>
{
private Func<T> func;
private int sec;
private T result;
public TimeOutTaskRunner(Func<T> func, int sec)
{
this.func = func;
this.sec = sec;
}
public bool run()
{
var scheduler = new SingleThreadTaskScheduler();
Task<T> task = Task<T>.Factory.StartNew(func, (new CancellationTokenSource()).Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, scheduler);
if (!task.Wait(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(sec)))
{
scheduler.TaskThread.Abort();
return false;
}
result = task.Result;
return true;
}
public T getResult() { return result; }
}
class SingleThreadTaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
public Thread TaskThread { get; private set; }
protected override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
TaskThread = new Thread(() => TryExecuteTask(task));
TaskThread.Start();
}
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() => throw new NotSupportedException();
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued) => throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
To use it you can write:
TimeOutTaskRunner<string> tr = new TimeOutTaskRunner<string>(f, 10); // 10 sec to run f
if (!tr.run())
errorMsg("TimeOut"); !! My func
tr.getResult() // get the results if it done without timeout..