Develop Reference

How to convert a YieldAwaitable to a Task [duplicate]

In contrast to Task.Wait() or Task.Result, await’ing a Task in C# 5 prevents the thread which executes the wait from lying fallow. Instead, the method using the await keyword needs to be async so that the call of await just makes the method to return a new task which represents the execution of the async method.
But when the await’ed Task completes before the async method has received CPU time again, the await recognizes the Task as finished and thus the async method will return the Task object only at a later time. In some cases this would be later than acceptable because it probably is a common mistake that a developer assumes the await’ing always defers the subsequent statements in his async method.
The mistaken async method’s structure could look like the following:
async Task doSthAsync()
{
var a = await getSthAsync();
// perform a long operation
}
Then sometimes doSthAsync() will return the Task only after a long time.
I know it should rather be written like this:
async Task doSthAsync()
{
var a = await getSthAsync();
await Task.Run(() =>
{
// perform a long operation
};
}
... or that:
async Task doSthAsync()
{
var a = await getSthAsync();
await Task.Yield();
// perform a long operation
}
But I do not find the last two patterns pretty and want to prevent the mistake to occur. I am developing a framework which provides getSthAsync and the first structure shall be common. So getSthAsync should return an Awaitable which always yields like the YieldAwaitable returned by Task.Yield() does.
Unfortunately most features provided by the Task Parallel Library like Task.WhenAll(IEnumerable<Task> tasks) only operate on Tasks so the result of getSthAsync should be a Task.
So is it possible to return a Task which always yields?

First of all, the consumer of an async method shouldn't assume it will "yield" as that's nothing to do with it being async. If the consumer needs to make sure there's an offload to another thread they should use Task.Run to enforce that.
Second of all, I don't see how using Task.Run, or Task.Yield is problematic as it's used inside an async method which returns a Task and not a YieldAwaitable.
If you want to create a Task that behaves like YieldAwaitable you can just use Task.Yield inside an async method:
async Task Yield()
{
await Task.Yield();
}
Edit:
As was mentioned in the comments, this has a race condition where it may not always yield. This race condition is inherent with how Task and TaskAwaiter are implemented. To avoid that you can create your own Task and TaskAwaiter:
public class YieldTask : Task
{
public YieldTask() : base(() => {})
{
Start(TaskScheduler.Default);
}
public new TaskAwaiterWrapper GetAwaiter() => new TaskAwaiterWrapper(base.GetAwaiter());
}
public struct TaskAwaiterWrapper : INotifyCompletion
{
private TaskAwaiter _taskAwaiter;
public TaskAwaiterWrapper(TaskAwaiter taskAwaiter)
{
_taskAwaiter = taskAwaiter;
}
public bool IsCompleted => false;
public void OnCompleted(Action continuation) => _taskAwaiter.OnCompleted(continuation);
public void GetResult() => _taskAwaiter.GetResult();
}
This will create a task that always yields because IsCompleted always returns false. It can be used like this:
public static readonly YieldTask YieldTask = new YieldTask();
private static async Task MainAsync()
{
await YieldTask;
// something
}
Note: I highly discourage anyone from actually doing this kind of thing.

Here is a polished version of i3arnon's YieldTask:
public class YieldTask : Task
{
public YieldTask() : base(() => { },
TaskCreationOptions.RunContinuationsAsynchronously)
=> RunSynchronously();
public new YieldAwaitable.YieldAwaiter GetAwaiter()
=> default;
public new YieldAwaitable ConfigureAwait(bool continueOnCapturedContext)
{
if (!continueOnCapturedContext) throw new NotSupportedException();
return default;
}
}
The YieldTask is immediately completed upon creation, but its awaiter says otherwise. The GetAwaiter().IsCompleted always returns false. This mischief makes the await operator to trigger the desirable asynchronous switch, every time it awaits this task. Actually creating multiple YieldTask instances is redundant. A singleton would work just as well.
There is a problem with this approach though. The underlying methods of the Task class are not virtual, and hiding them with the new modifier means that polymorphism doesn't work. If you store a YieldTask instance to a Task variable, you'll get the default task behavior. This is a considerable drawback for my use case, but I can't see any solution around it.

how to call an async method synchronously? [duplicate]

I have a public async void Foo() method that I want to call from synchronous method. So far all I have seen from MSDN documentation is calling async methods via async methods, but my whole program is not built with async methods.
Is this even possible?
Here's one example of calling these methods from an asynchronous method:
Walkthrough: Accessing the Web by Using Async and Await (C# and Visual Basic)
Now I'm looking into calling these async methods from sync methods.

Asynchronous programming does "grow" through the code base. It has been compared to a zombie virus. The best solution is to allow it to grow, but sometimes that's not possible.
I have written a few types in my Nito.AsyncEx library for dealing with a partially-asynchronous code base. There's no solution that works in every situation, though.
Solution A
If you have a simple asynchronous method that doesn't need to synchronize back to its context, then you can use Task.WaitAndUnwrapException:
var task = MyAsyncMethod();
var result = task.WaitAndUnwrapException();
You do not want to use Task.Wait or Task.Result because they wrap exceptions in AggregateException.
This solution is only appropriate if MyAsyncMethod does not synchronize back to its context. In other words, every await in MyAsyncMethod should end with ConfigureAwait(false). This means it can't update any UI elements or access the ASP.NET request context.
Solution B
If MyAsyncMethod does need to synchronize back to its context, then you may be able to use AsyncContext.RunTask to provide a nested context:
var result = AsyncContext.RunTask(MyAsyncMethod).Result;
*Update 4/14/2014: In more recent versions of the library the API is as follows:
var result = AsyncContext.Run(MyAsyncMethod);
(It's OK to use Task.Result in this example because RunTask will propagate Task exceptions).
The reason you may need AsyncContext.RunTask instead of Task.WaitAndUnwrapException is because of a rather subtle deadlock possibility that happens on WinForms/WPF/SL/ASP.NET:
A synchronous method calls an async method, obtaining a Task.
The synchronous method does a blocking wait on the Task.
The async method uses await without ConfigureAwait.
The Task cannot complete in this situation because it only completes when the async method is finished; the async method cannot complete because it is attempting to schedule its continuation to the SynchronizationContext, and WinForms/WPF/SL/ASP.NET will not allow the continuation to run because the synchronous method is already running in that context.
This is one reason why it's a good idea to use ConfigureAwait(false) within every async method as much as possible.
Solution C
AsyncContext.RunTask won't work in every scenario. For example, if the async method awaits something that requires a UI event to complete, then you'll deadlock even with the nested context. In that case, you could start the async method on the thread pool:
var task = Task.Run(async () => await MyAsyncMethod());
var result = task.WaitAndUnwrapException();
However, this solution requires a MyAsyncMethod that will work in the thread pool context. So it can't update UI elements or access the ASP.NET request context. And in that case, you may as well add ConfigureAwait(false) to its await statements, and use solution A.
Update, 2019-05-01: The current "least-worst practices" are in an MSDN article here.

Adding a solution that finally solved my problem, hopefully saves somebody's time.
Firstly read a couple articles of Stephen Cleary:
Async and Await
Don't Block on Async Code
From the "two best practices" in "Don't Block on Async Code", the first one didn't work for me and the second one wasn't applicable (basically if I can use await, I do!).
So here is my workaround: wrap the call inside a Task.Run<>(async () => await FunctionAsync()); and hopefully no deadlock anymore.
Here is my code:
public class LogReader
{
ILogger _logger;
public LogReader(ILogger logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public LogEntity GetLog()
{
Task<LogEntity> task = Task.Run<LogEntity>(async () => await GetLogAsync());
return task.Result;
}
public async Task<LogEntity> GetLogAsync()
{
var result = await _logger.GetAsync();
// more code here...
return result as LogEntity;
}
}

Microsoft built an AsyncHelper (internal) class to run Async as Sync. The source looks like:
internal static class AsyncHelper
{
private static readonly TaskFactory _myTaskFactory = new
TaskFactory(CancellationToken.None,
TaskCreationOptions.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.None,
TaskScheduler.Default);
public static TResult RunSync<TResult>(Func<Task<TResult>> func)
{
return AsyncHelper._myTaskFactory
.StartNew<Task<TResult>>(func)
.Unwrap<TResult>()
.GetAwaiter()
.GetResult();
}
public static void RunSync(Func<Task> func)
{
AsyncHelper._myTaskFactory
.StartNew<Task>(func)
.Unwrap()
.GetAwaiter()
.GetResult();
}
}
The Microsoft.AspNet.Identity base classes only have Async methods and in order to call them as Sync there are classes with extension methods that look like (example usage):
public static TUser FindById<TUser, TKey>(this UserManager<TUser, TKey> manager, TKey userId) where TUser : class, IUser<TKey> where TKey : IEquatable<TKey>
{
if (manager == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("manager");
}
return AsyncHelper.RunSync<TUser>(() => manager.FindByIdAsync(userId));
}
public static bool IsInRole<TUser, TKey>(this UserManager<TUser, TKey> manager, TKey userId, string role) where TUser : class, IUser<TKey> where TKey : IEquatable<TKey>
{
if (manager == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("manager");
}
return AsyncHelper.RunSync<bool>(() => manager.IsInRoleAsync(userId, role));
}
For those concerned about the licensing terms of code, here is a link to very similar code (just adds support for culture on the thread) that has comments to indicate that it is MIT Licensed by Microsoft. https://github.com/aspnet/AspNetIdentity/blob/master/src/Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.Core/AsyncHelper.cs
Wouldn't this be the same as just calling Task.Run(async ()=> await AsyncFunc()).Result? AFAIK, Microsoft is now discouraging from calling TaskFactory.StartNew, since they are both equivalent and one is more readable than the other.
Absolutely not.
The easy answer is that
.Unwrap().GetAwaiter().GetResult() != .Result
First off the
Is Task.Result the same as .GetAwaiter.GetResult()?
Secondly .Unwrap() causes the setup of the Task not to block the wrapped task.
Which should lead anyone to ask
Wouldn't this be the same as just calling Task.Run(async ()=> await AsyncFunc()).GetAwaiter().GetResult()
Which would then be a It Depends.
Regarding usage of Task.Start() , Task.Run() and Task.Factory.StartNew()
Excerpt:
Task.Run uses TaskCreationOptions.DenyChildAttach which means that children's tasks can not be attached to the parent and it uses TaskScheduler.Default which means that the one that runs tasks on Thread Pool will always be used to run tasks.
Task.Factory.StartNew uses TaskScheduler.Current which means scheduler of the current thread, it might be TaskScheduler.Default but not always.
Additional Reading:
Specifying a synchronization context
ASP.NET Core SynchronizationContext
For extra safety, wouldn't it be better to call it like this AsyncHelper.RunSync(async () => await AsyncMethod().ConfigureAwait(false)); This way we're telling the "inner" method "please don't try to sync to upper context and dealock"
Really great point and as most object architectural questions go it depends.
As an extension method do you want to force that for absolutely every call, or do you let the programmer using the function configure that on their own async calls? I could see a use case for call three scenarios; it most likely is not something you want in WPF, certainly makes sense in most cases, but considering there is no Context in ASP.Net Core if you could guarantee it was say internal for a ASP.Net Core, then it wouldn't matter.

async Main is now part of C# 7.2 and can be enabled in the projects advanced build settings.
For C# < 7.2, the correct way is:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MainAsync().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
static async Task MainAsync()
{
/*await stuff here*/
}
You'll see this used in a lot of Microsoft documentation, for example:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-bus-messaging/service-bus-dotnet-how-to-use-topics-subscriptions

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the technique described in this blog should work in many circumstances:
You can thus use task.GetAwaiter().GetResult() if you want to directly invoke this propagation logic.

public async Task<string> StartMyTask()
{
await Foo()
// code to execute once foo is done
}
static void Main()
{
var myTask = StartMyTask(); // call your method which will return control once it hits await
// now you can continue executing code here
string result = myTask.Result; // wait for the task to complete to continue
// use result
}
You read the 'await' keyword as "start this long running task, then return control to the calling method". Once the long-running task is done, then it executes the code after it. The code after the await is similar to what used to be CallBack methods. The big difference being the logical flow is not interrupted which makes it much easier to write and read.

There is, however, a good solution that works in (almost: see comments) every situation: an ad-hoc message pump (SynchronizationContext).
The calling thread will be blocked as expected, while still ensuring that all continuations called from the async function don't deadlock as they'll be marshaled to the ad-hoc SynchronizationContext (message pump) running on the calling thread.
The code of the ad-hoc message pump helper:
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Microsoft.Threading
{
/// <summary>Provides a pump that supports running asynchronous methods on the current thread.</summary>
public static class AsyncPump
{
/// <summary>Runs the specified asynchronous method.</summary>
/// <param name="asyncMethod">The asynchronous method to execute.</param>
public static void Run(Action asyncMethod)
{
if (asyncMethod == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("asyncMethod");
var prevCtx = SynchronizationContext.Current;
try
{
// Establish the new context
var syncCtx = new SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(true);
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(syncCtx);
// Invoke the function
syncCtx.OperationStarted();
asyncMethod();
syncCtx.OperationCompleted();
// Pump continuations and propagate any exceptions
syncCtx.RunOnCurrentThread();
}
finally { SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(prevCtx); }
}
/// <summary>Runs the specified asynchronous method.</summary>
/// <param name="asyncMethod">The asynchronous method to execute.</param>
public static void Run(Func<Task> asyncMethod)
{
if (asyncMethod == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("asyncMethod");
var prevCtx = SynchronizationContext.Current;
try
{
// Establish the new context
var syncCtx = new SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(false);
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(syncCtx);
// Invoke the function and alert the context to when it completes
var t = asyncMethod();
if (t == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("No task provided.");
t.ContinueWith(delegate { syncCtx.Complete(); }, TaskScheduler.Default);
// Pump continuations and propagate any exceptions
syncCtx.RunOnCurrentThread();
t.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
finally { SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(prevCtx); }
}
/// <summary>Runs the specified asynchronous method.</summary>
/// <param name="asyncMethod">The asynchronous method to execute.</param>
public static T Run<T>(Func<Task<T>> asyncMethod)
{
if (asyncMethod == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("asyncMethod");
var prevCtx = SynchronizationContext.Current;
try
{
// Establish the new context
var syncCtx = new SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(false);
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(syncCtx);
// Invoke the function and alert the context to when it completes
var t = asyncMethod();
if (t == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("No task provided.");
t.ContinueWith(delegate { syncCtx.Complete(); }, TaskScheduler.Default);
// Pump continuations and propagate any exceptions
syncCtx.RunOnCurrentThread();
return t.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
finally { SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(prevCtx); }
}
/// <summary>Provides a SynchronizationContext that's single-threaded.</summary>
private sealed class SingleThreadSynchronizationContext : SynchronizationContext
{
/// <summary>The queue of work items.</summary>
private readonly BlockingCollection<KeyValuePair<SendOrPostCallback, object>> m_queue =
new BlockingCollection<KeyValuePair<SendOrPostCallback, object>>();
/// <summary>The processing thread.</summary>
private readonly Thread m_thread = Thread.CurrentThread;
/// <summary>The number of outstanding operations.</summary>
private int m_operationCount = 0;
/// <summary>Whether to track operations m_operationCount.</summary>
private readonly bool m_trackOperations;
/// <summary>Initializes the context.</summary>
/// <param name="trackOperations">Whether to track operation count.</param>
internal SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(bool trackOperations)
{
m_trackOperations = trackOperations;
}
/// <summary>Dispatches an asynchronous message to the synchronization context.</summary>
/// <param name="d">The System.Threading.SendOrPostCallback delegate to call.</param>
/// <param name="state">The object passed to the delegate.</param>
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
if (d == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("d");
m_queue.Add(new KeyValuePair<SendOrPostCallback, object>(d, state));
}
/// <summary>Not supported.</summary>
public override void Send(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Synchronously sending is not supported.");
}
/// <summary>Runs an loop to process all queued work items.</summary>
public void RunOnCurrentThread()
{
foreach (var workItem in m_queue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
workItem.Key(workItem.Value);
}
/// <summary>Notifies the context that no more work will arrive.</summary>
public void Complete() { m_queue.CompleteAdding(); }
/// <summary>Invoked when an async operation is started.</summary>
public override void OperationStarted()
{
if (m_trackOperations)
Interlocked.Increment(ref m_operationCount);
}
/// <summary>Invoked when an async operation is completed.</summary>
public override void OperationCompleted()
{
if (m_trackOperations &&
Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_operationCount) == 0)
Complete();
}
}
}
}
Usage:
AsyncPump.Run(() => FooAsync(...));
More detailed description of the async pump is available here.

To anyone paying attention to this question anymore...
If you look in Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.WebApi there's a class called TaskExtensions. Within that class you'll see the static extension method Task.SyncResult(), which like totally just blocks the thread till the task returns.
Internally it calls task.GetAwaiter().GetResult() which is pretty simple, however it's overloaded to work on any async method that return Task, Task<T> or Task<HttpResponseMessage>... syntactic sugar, baby... daddy's got a sweet tooth.
It looks like ...GetAwaiter().GetResult() is the MS-official way to execute async code in a blocking context. Seems to work very fine for my use case.

var result = Task.Run(async () => await configManager.GetConfigurationAsync()).ConfigureAwait(false);
OpenIdConnectConfiguration config = result.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
Or use this:
var result=result.GetAwaiter().GetResult().AccessToken

You can call any asynchronous method from synchronous code, that is, until you need to await on them, in which case they have to be marked as async too.
As a lot of people are suggesting here, you could call Wait() or Result on the resulting task in your synchronous method, but then you end up with a blocking call in that method, which sort of defeats the purpose of async.
If you really can't make your method async and you don't want to lock up the synchronous method, then you're going to have to use a callback method by passing it as parameter to the ContinueWith() method on task.

Inspired by some of the other answers, I created the following simple helper methods:
public static TResult RunSync<TResult>(Func<Task<TResult>> method)
{
var task = method();
return task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
public static void RunSync(Func<Task> method)
{
var task = method();
task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
They can be called as follows (depending on whether you are returning a value or not):
RunSync(() => Foo());
var result = RunSync(() => FooWithResult());
Note that the signature in the original question public async void Foo() is incorrect. It should be public async Task Foo() as you should return Task not void for async methods that don't return a value (yes, there are some rare exceptions).

Stephen Cleary's Answer;
That approach shouldn't cause a deadlock (assuming that
ProblemMethodAsync doesn't send updates to the UI thread or anything
like that). It does assume that ProblemMethodAsync can be called on a
thread pool thread, which is not always the case.
https://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/07/dont-block-on-async-code.html
And here is the approach;
The Thread Pool Hack A similar approach to the Blocking Hack is to
offload the asynchronous work to the thread pool, then block on the
resulting task. The code using this hack would look like the code
shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Code for the Thread Pool Hack
C#
public sealed class WebDataService : IDataService
{
public string Get(int id)
{
return Task.Run(() => GetAsync(id)).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
public async Task<string> GetAsync(int id)
{
using (var client = new WebClient())
return await client.DownloadStringTaskAsync(
"https://www.example.com/api/values/" + id);
}
}
The call to Task.Run executes the asynchronous method on a thread pool
thread. Here it will run without a context, thus avoiding the
deadlock. One of the problems with this approach is the asynchronous
method can’t depend on executing within a specific context. So, it
can’t use UI elements or the ASP.NET HttpContext.Current.

Here is the simplest solution. I saw it somewhere on the Internet, I didn't remember where, but I have been using it successfully. It will not deadlock the calling thread.
void SynchronousFunction()
{
Task.Run(Foo).Wait();
}
string SynchronousFunctionReturnsString()
{
return Task.Run(Foo).Result;
}
string SynchronousFunctionReturnsStringWithParam(int id)
{
return Task.Run(() => Foo(id)).Result;
}

After hours of trying different methods, with more or less success, this is what I ended with. It doesn't end in a deadlock while getting result and it also gets and throws the original exception and not the wrapped one.
private ReturnType RunSync()
{
var task = Task.Run(async () => await myMethodAsync(agency));
if (task.IsFaulted && task.Exception != null)
{
throw task.Exception;
}
return task.Result;
}

You can now use source generators to create a sync version of your method using Sync Method Generator library (nuget).
Use it as follows:
[Zomp.SyncMethodGenerator.CreateSyncVersion]
public async void FooAsync()
Which will generate Foo method which you can call synchronously.

Those windows async methods have a nifty little method called AsTask(). You can use this to have the method return itself as a task so that you can manually call Wait() on it.
For example, on a Windows Phone 8 Silverlight application, you can do the following:
private void DeleteSynchronous(string path)
{
StorageFolder localFolder = Windows.Storage.ApplicationData.Current.LocalFolder;
Task t = localFolder.DeleteAsync(StorageDeleteOption.PermanentDelete).AsTask();
t.Wait();
}
private void FunctionThatNeedsToBeSynchronous()
{
// Do some work here
// ....
// Delete something in storage synchronously
DeleteSynchronous("pathGoesHere");
// Do other work here
// .....
}
Hope this helps!

If you want to run it Sync
MethodAsync().RunSynchronously()

Make a sync method from async method [duplicate]

I have a public async void Foo() method that I want to call from synchronous method. So far all I have seen from MSDN documentation is calling async methods via async methods, but my whole program is not built with async methods.
Is this even possible?
Here's one example of calling these methods from an asynchronous method:
Walkthrough: Accessing the Web by Using Async and Await (C# and Visual Basic)
Now I'm looking into calling these async methods from sync methods.

Asynchronous programming does "grow" through the code base. It has been compared to a zombie virus. The best solution is to allow it to grow, but sometimes that's not possible.
I have written a few types in my Nito.AsyncEx library for dealing with a partially-asynchronous code base. There's no solution that works in every situation, though.
Solution A
If you have a simple asynchronous method that doesn't need to synchronize back to its context, then you can use Task.WaitAndUnwrapException:
var task = MyAsyncMethod();
var result = task.WaitAndUnwrapException();
You do not want to use Task.Wait or Task.Result because they wrap exceptions in AggregateException.
This solution is only appropriate if MyAsyncMethod does not synchronize back to its context. In other words, every await in MyAsyncMethod should end with ConfigureAwait(false). This means it can't update any UI elements or access the ASP.NET request context.
Solution B
If MyAsyncMethod does need to synchronize back to its context, then you may be able to use AsyncContext.RunTask to provide a nested context:
var result = AsyncContext.RunTask(MyAsyncMethod).Result;
*Update 4/14/2014: In more recent versions of the library the API is as follows:
var result = AsyncContext.Run(MyAsyncMethod);
(It's OK to use Task.Result in this example because RunTask will propagate Task exceptions).
The reason you may need AsyncContext.RunTask instead of Task.WaitAndUnwrapException is because of a rather subtle deadlock possibility that happens on WinForms/WPF/SL/ASP.NET:
A synchronous method calls an async method, obtaining a Task.
The synchronous method does a blocking wait on the Task.
The async method uses await without ConfigureAwait.
The Task cannot complete in this situation because it only completes when the async method is finished; the async method cannot complete because it is attempting to schedule its continuation to the SynchronizationContext, and WinForms/WPF/SL/ASP.NET will not allow the continuation to run because the synchronous method is already running in that context.
This is one reason why it's a good idea to use ConfigureAwait(false) within every async method as much as possible.
Solution C
AsyncContext.RunTask won't work in every scenario. For example, if the async method awaits something that requires a UI event to complete, then you'll deadlock even with the nested context. In that case, you could start the async method on the thread pool:
var task = Task.Run(async () => await MyAsyncMethod());
var result = task.WaitAndUnwrapException();
However, this solution requires a MyAsyncMethod that will work in the thread pool context. So it can't update UI elements or access the ASP.NET request context. And in that case, you may as well add ConfigureAwait(false) to its await statements, and use solution A.
Update, 2019-05-01: The current "least-worst practices" are in an MSDN article here.

Adding a solution that finally solved my problem, hopefully saves somebody's time.
Firstly read a couple articles of Stephen Cleary:
Async and Await
Don't Block on Async Code
From the "two best practices" in "Don't Block on Async Code", the first one didn't work for me and the second one wasn't applicable (basically if I can use await, I do!).
So here is my workaround: wrap the call inside a Task.Run<>(async () => await FunctionAsync()); and hopefully no deadlock anymore.
Here is my code:
public class LogReader
{
ILogger _logger;
public LogReader(ILogger logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public LogEntity GetLog()
{
Task<LogEntity> task = Task.Run<LogEntity>(async () => await GetLogAsync());
return task.Result;
}
public async Task<LogEntity> GetLogAsync()
{
var result = await _logger.GetAsync();
// more code here...
return result as LogEntity;
}
}

Microsoft built an AsyncHelper (internal) class to run Async as Sync. The source looks like:
internal static class AsyncHelper
{
private static readonly TaskFactory _myTaskFactory = new
TaskFactory(CancellationToken.None,
TaskCreationOptions.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.None,
TaskScheduler.Default);
public static TResult RunSync<TResult>(Func<Task<TResult>> func)
{
return AsyncHelper._myTaskFactory
.StartNew<Task<TResult>>(func)
.Unwrap<TResult>()
.GetAwaiter()
.GetResult();
}
public static void RunSync(Func<Task> func)
{
AsyncHelper._myTaskFactory
.StartNew<Task>(func)
.Unwrap()
.GetAwaiter()
.GetResult();
}
}
The Microsoft.AspNet.Identity base classes only have Async methods and in order to call them as Sync there are classes with extension methods that look like (example usage):
public static TUser FindById<TUser, TKey>(this UserManager<TUser, TKey> manager, TKey userId) where TUser : class, IUser<TKey> where TKey : IEquatable<TKey>
{
if (manager == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("manager");
}
return AsyncHelper.RunSync<TUser>(() => manager.FindByIdAsync(userId));
}
public static bool IsInRole<TUser, TKey>(this UserManager<TUser, TKey> manager, TKey userId, string role) where TUser : class, IUser<TKey> where TKey : IEquatable<TKey>
{
if (manager == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("manager");
}
return AsyncHelper.RunSync<bool>(() => manager.IsInRoleAsync(userId, role));
}
For those concerned about the licensing terms of code, here is a link to very similar code (just adds support for culture on the thread) that has comments to indicate that it is MIT Licensed by Microsoft. https://github.com/aspnet/AspNetIdentity/blob/master/src/Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.Core/AsyncHelper.cs
Wouldn't this be the same as just calling Task.Run(async ()=> await AsyncFunc()).Result? AFAIK, Microsoft is now discouraging from calling TaskFactory.StartNew, since they are both equivalent and one is more readable than the other.
Absolutely not.
The easy answer is that
.Unwrap().GetAwaiter().GetResult() != .Result
First off the
Is Task.Result the same as .GetAwaiter.GetResult()?
Secondly .Unwrap() causes the setup of the Task not to block the wrapped task.
Which should lead anyone to ask
Wouldn't this be the same as just calling Task.Run(async ()=> await AsyncFunc()).GetAwaiter().GetResult()
Which would then be a It Depends.
Regarding usage of Task.Start() , Task.Run() and Task.Factory.StartNew()
Excerpt:
Task.Run uses TaskCreationOptions.DenyChildAttach which means that children's tasks can not be attached to the parent and it uses TaskScheduler.Default which means that the one that runs tasks on Thread Pool will always be used to run tasks.
Task.Factory.StartNew uses TaskScheduler.Current which means scheduler of the current thread, it might be TaskScheduler.Default but not always.
Additional Reading:
Specifying a synchronization context
ASP.NET Core SynchronizationContext
For extra safety, wouldn't it be better to call it like this AsyncHelper.RunSync(async () => await AsyncMethod().ConfigureAwait(false)); This way we're telling the "inner" method "please don't try to sync to upper context and dealock"
Really great point and as most object architectural questions go it depends.
As an extension method do you want to force that for absolutely every call, or do you let the programmer using the function configure that on their own async calls? I could see a use case for call three scenarios; it most likely is not something you want in WPF, certainly makes sense in most cases, but considering there is no Context in ASP.Net Core if you could guarantee it was say internal for a ASP.Net Core, then it wouldn't matter.

async Main is now part of C# 7.2 and can be enabled in the projects advanced build settings.
For C# < 7.2, the correct way is:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MainAsync().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
static async Task MainAsync()
{
/*await stuff here*/
}
You'll see this used in a lot of Microsoft documentation, for example:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-bus-messaging/service-bus-dotnet-how-to-use-topics-subscriptions

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the technique described in this blog should work in many circumstances:
You can thus use task.GetAwaiter().GetResult() if you want to directly invoke this propagation logic.

public async Task<string> StartMyTask()
{
await Foo()
// code to execute once foo is done
}
static void Main()
{
var myTask = StartMyTask(); // call your method which will return control once it hits await
// now you can continue executing code here
string result = myTask.Result; // wait for the task to complete to continue
// use result
}
You read the 'await' keyword as "start this long running task, then return control to the calling method". Once the long-running task is done, then it executes the code after it. The code after the await is similar to what used to be CallBack methods. The big difference being the logical flow is not interrupted which makes it much easier to write and read.

There is, however, a good solution that works in (almost: see comments) every situation: an ad-hoc message pump (SynchronizationContext).
The calling thread will be blocked as expected, while still ensuring that all continuations called from the async function don't deadlock as they'll be marshaled to the ad-hoc SynchronizationContext (message pump) running on the calling thread.
The code of the ad-hoc message pump helper:
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Microsoft.Threading
{
/// <summary>Provides a pump that supports running asynchronous methods on the current thread.</summary>
public static class AsyncPump
{
/// <summary>Runs the specified asynchronous method.</summary>
/// <param name="asyncMethod">The asynchronous method to execute.</param>
public static void Run(Action asyncMethod)
{
if (asyncMethod == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("asyncMethod");
var prevCtx = SynchronizationContext.Current;
try
{
// Establish the new context
var syncCtx = new SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(true);
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(syncCtx);
// Invoke the function
syncCtx.OperationStarted();
asyncMethod();
syncCtx.OperationCompleted();
// Pump continuations and propagate any exceptions
syncCtx.RunOnCurrentThread();
}
finally { SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(prevCtx); }
}
/// <summary>Runs the specified asynchronous method.</summary>
/// <param name="asyncMethod">The asynchronous method to execute.</param>
public static void Run(Func<Task> asyncMethod)
{
if (asyncMethod == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("asyncMethod");
var prevCtx = SynchronizationContext.Current;
try
{
// Establish the new context
var syncCtx = new SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(false);
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(syncCtx);
// Invoke the function and alert the context to when it completes
var t = asyncMethod();
if (t == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("No task provided.");
t.ContinueWith(delegate { syncCtx.Complete(); }, TaskScheduler.Default);
// Pump continuations and propagate any exceptions
syncCtx.RunOnCurrentThread();
t.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
finally { SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(prevCtx); }
}
/// <summary>Runs the specified asynchronous method.</summary>
/// <param name="asyncMethod">The asynchronous method to execute.</param>
public static T Run<T>(Func<Task<T>> asyncMethod)
{
if (asyncMethod == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("asyncMethod");
var prevCtx = SynchronizationContext.Current;
try
{
// Establish the new context
var syncCtx = new SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(false);
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(syncCtx);
// Invoke the function and alert the context to when it completes
var t = asyncMethod();
if (t == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("No task provided.");
t.ContinueWith(delegate { syncCtx.Complete(); }, TaskScheduler.Default);
// Pump continuations and propagate any exceptions
syncCtx.RunOnCurrentThread();
return t.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
finally { SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(prevCtx); }
}
/// <summary>Provides a SynchronizationContext that's single-threaded.</summary>
private sealed class SingleThreadSynchronizationContext : SynchronizationContext
{
/// <summary>The queue of work items.</summary>
private readonly BlockingCollection<KeyValuePair<SendOrPostCallback, object>> m_queue =
new BlockingCollection<KeyValuePair<SendOrPostCallback, object>>();
/// <summary>The processing thread.</summary>
private readonly Thread m_thread = Thread.CurrentThread;
/// <summary>The number of outstanding operations.</summary>
private int m_operationCount = 0;
/// <summary>Whether to track operations m_operationCount.</summary>
private readonly bool m_trackOperations;
/// <summary>Initializes the context.</summary>
/// <param name="trackOperations">Whether to track operation count.</param>
internal SingleThreadSynchronizationContext(bool trackOperations)
{
m_trackOperations = trackOperations;
}
/// <summary>Dispatches an asynchronous message to the synchronization context.</summary>
/// <param name="d">The System.Threading.SendOrPostCallback delegate to call.</param>
/// <param name="state">The object passed to the delegate.</param>
public override void Post(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
if (d == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("d");
m_queue.Add(new KeyValuePair<SendOrPostCallback, object>(d, state));
}
/// <summary>Not supported.</summary>
public override void Send(SendOrPostCallback d, object state)
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Synchronously sending is not supported.");
}
/// <summary>Runs an loop to process all queued work items.</summary>
public void RunOnCurrentThread()
{
foreach (var workItem in m_queue.GetConsumingEnumerable())
workItem.Key(workItem.Value);
}
/// <summary>Notifies the context that no more work will arrive.</summary>
public void Complete() { m_queue.CompleteAdding(); }
/// <summary>Invoked when an async operation is started.</summary>
public override void OperationStarted()
{
if (m_trackOperations)
Interlocked.Increment(ref m_operationCount);
}
/// <summary>Invoked when an async operation is completed.</summary>
public override void OperationCompleted()
{
if (m_trackOperations &&
Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_operationCount) == 0)
Complete();
}
}
}
}
Usage:
AsyncPump.Run(() => FooAsync(...));
More detailed description of the async pump is available here.

To anyone paying attention to this question anymore...
If you look in Microsoft.VisualStudio.Services.WebApi there's a class called TaskExtensions. Within that class you'll see the static extension method Task.SyncResult(), which like totally just blocks the thread till the task returns.
Internally it calls task.GetAwaiter().GetResult() which is pretty simple, however it's overloaded to work on any async method that return Task, Task<T> or Task<HttpResponseMessage>... syntactic sugar, baby... daddy's got a sweet tooth.
It looks like ...GetAwaiter().GetResult() is the MS-official way to execute async code in a blocking context. Seems to work very fine for my use case.

var result = Task.Run(async () => await configManager.GetConfigurationAsync()).ConfigureAwait(false);
OpenIdConnectConfiguration config = result.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
Or use this:
var result=result.GetAwaiter().GetResult().AccessToken

You can call any asynchronous method from synchronous code, that is, until you need to await on them, in which case they have to be marked as async too.
As a lot of people are suggesting here, you could call Wait() or Result on the resulting task in your synchronous method, but then you end up with a blocking call in that method, which sort of defeats the purpose of async.
If you really can't make your method async and you don't want to lock up the synchronous method, then you're going to have to use a callback method by passing it as parameter to the ContinueWith() method on task.

Inspired by some of the other answers, I created the following simple helper methods:
public static TResult RunSync<TResult>(Func<Task<TResult>> method)
{
var task = method();
return task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
public static void RunSync(Func<Task> method)
{
var task = method();
task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
They can be called as follows (depending on whether you are returning a value or not):
RunSync(() => Foo());
var result = RunSync(() => FooWithResult());
Note that the signature in the original question public async void Foo() is incorrect. It should be public async Task Foo() as you should return Task not void for async methods that don't return a value (yes, there are some rare exceptions).

Stephen Cleary's Answer;
That approach shouldn't cause a deadlock (assuming that
ProblemMethodAsync doesn't send updates to the UI thread or anything
like that). It does assume that ProblemMethodAsync can be called on a
thread pool thread, which is not always the case.
https://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/07/dont-block-on-async-code.html
And here is the approach;
The Thread Pool Hack A similar approach to the Blocking Hack is to
offload the asynchronous work to the thread pool, then block on the
resulting task. The code using this hack would look like the code
shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Code for the Thread Pool Hack
C#
public sealed class WebDataService : IDataService
{
public string Get(int id)
{
return Task.Run(() => GetAsync(id)).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
public async Task<string> GetAsync(int id)
{
using (var client = new WebClient())
return await client.DownloadStringTaskAsync(
"https://www.example.com/api/values/" + id);
}
}
The call to Task.Run executes the asynchronous method on a thread pool
thread. Here it will run without a context, thus avoiding the
deadlock. One of the problems with this approach is the asynchronous
method can’t depend on executing within a specific context. So, it
can’t use UI elements or the ASP.NET HttpContext.Current.

Here is the simplest solution. I saw it somewhere on the Internet, I didn't remember where, but I have been using it successfully. It will not deadlock the calling thread.
void SynchronousFunction()
{
Task.Run(Foo).Wait();
}
string SynchronousFunctionReturnsString()
{
return Task.Run(Foo).Result;
}
string SynchronousFunctionReturnsStringWithParam(int id)
{
return Task.Run(() => Foo(id)).Result;
}

After hours of trying different methods, with more or less success, this is what I ended with. It doesn't end in a deadlock while getting result and it also gets and throws the original exception and not the wrapped one.
private ReturnType RunSync()
{
var task = Task.Run(async () => await myMethodAsync(agency));
if (task.IsFaulted && task.Exception != null)
{
throw task.Exception;
}
return task.Result;
}

You can now use source generators to create a sync version of your method using Sync Method Generator library (nuget).
Use it as follows:
[Zomp.SyncMethodGenerator.CreateSyncVersion]
public async void FooAsync()
Which will generate Foo method which you can call synchronously.

Those windows async methods have a nifty little method called AsTask(). You can use this to have the method return itself as a task so that you can manually call Wait() on it.
For example, on a Windows Phone 8 Silverlight application, you can do the following:
private void DeleteSynchronous(string path)
{
StorageFolder localFolder = Windows.Storage.ApplicationData.Current.LocalFolder;
Task t = localFolder.DeleteAsync(StorageDeleteOption.PermanentDelete).AsTask();
t.Wait();
}
private void FunctionThatNeedsToBeSynchronous()
{
// Do some work here
// ....
// Delete something in storage synchronously
DeleteSynchronous("pathGoesHere");
// Do other work here
// .....
}
Hope this helps!

If you want to run it Sync
MethodAsync().RunSynchronously()

TPL-based looping service: right worker method signature, asynchrony

Regarding the right worker method signature I need to understand the following:
is there a point in returning Task instead of void for Worker method (if going sync)?
Should I really wait (call Wait()) on the Worker method (if going sync)?
what should be the return value of Worker method when marked as returning Task object (both if going sync/async)?
what signature and body of Worker method should be, given the work it completes is long-running CPU/IO-bound work? Should I follow this recommendation (if going mixed/async)?
Note
Despite the cpu-bound code, there's a choice to call async versions of io-bound methods (sql queries). So it may be all sync or partially async. As for the nature of code in the Worker method.
public class LoopingService
{
private CancellationTokenSource cts;
// ..
void Worker(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while(!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// mixed, CPU/IO-bound code
try {
// sql query (can be called either as sync/async)
var lastId = documentService.GetLastDocument().Id;
// get next document from a public resource (third-party code, sync)
// can be moved to a web api
var document = thirdPartyDocumentService.GetNextDocument(lastId);
// apply different processors in parallel
var tasksList = new List<Task>();
foreach(var processor in documentService.Processors) {
// each processor checks if it's applicable
// which may include xml-parsing, additional db calls, regexes
// if it's applicable then document data is inserted into the db
var task = new Task(() => processor.Process(document));
tasksList.Add(task);
task.Start();
}
// or
// var tasksList = documentService.ProcessParallel(document);
Task.WaitAll(tasksList.ToArray(), cancellationToken);
}
catch(Exception ex) {
logger.log(ex);
}
}
}
public void Start()
{
this.cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task.Run(() => this.Worker(cts.Token));
}
public void Stop()
{
this.cts.Cancel();
this.cts.Dispose();
}
}

is there a point in returning Task instead of void for Worker method?
If Worker is a truly asynchronous method it should return a Task for you to be able to await it. If it's just a synchronous method runnning on a background thread there is no point of changing the return type from void provided that the method is not supposed to return anything.
what should be the return value of Worker method when marked as returning Task object?
Nothing. Provided that the method is asynchronous and marked as async with a return type of Task, it shouldn't return any value:
async Task Worker(CancellationToken cancellationToken) { ... }
Note that there is no point of defining the method as async unless you actually use the await keyword in it.
what signature and body of Worker method should be given the work it completes is long-running CPU/IO-bound work? Should I follow this recommendation?
Yes, probably. If you for some reason are doing both asynchronous and synchronous (CPU-bound) work in the same method, you should prefer to using an asynchronous signature but not wrap the synchronous stuff in Task.Run. Then your service would look something like this:
public class LoopingService
{
private CancellationTokenSource cts;
async Task Worker(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await ...
}
}
public async Task Start()
{
this.cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
await this.Worker(cts.Token).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
public void Stop()
{
this.cts.Cancel();
this.cts.Dispose();
}
}
Ideally your method should be either asynchronous or CPU-bound but not both though.

Why was "SwitchTo" removed from Async CTP / Release?

I tried to use the SwitchTo method today to switch to the GUI thread, and found that the example I lifted it from does not work, simply because the method is not there.
I then found this blurb here:
The reason we got rid of it was because it was so dangerous. The alternative is to bundle up your code inside TaskEx.Run...
My question is simply: Why was it dangerous? What specific dangers would using it lead to?
Note that I did read the rest of that post, so I do understand there are technical limitations here. My question is still, if I'm aware of this, why is it dangerous?
I am considering reimplementing helper methods to give me the specified functionality, but if there is something fundamentally broken, other than that someone decided it was dangerous, I would not do it.
Specifically, very naively, here's how I would consider implementing the required methods:
public static class ContextSwitcher
{
public static ThreadPoolContextSwitcher SwitchToThreadPool()
{
return new ThreadPoolContextSwitcher();
}
public static SynchronizationContextSwitcher SwitchTo(this SynchronizationContext synchronizationContext)
{
return new SynchronizationContextSwitcher(synchronizationContext);
}
}
public class SynchronizationContextSwitcher : INotifyCompletion
{
private readonly SynchronizationContext _SynchronizationContext;
public SynchronizationContextSwitcher(SynchronizationContext synchronizationContext)
{
_SynchronizationContext = synchronizationContext;
}
public SynchronizationContextSwitcher GetAwaiter()
{
return this;
}
public bool IsCompleted
{
get
{
return false;
}
}
public void OnCompleted(Action action)
{
_SynchronizationContext.Post(_ => action(), null);
}
public void GetResult()
{
}
}
public class ThreadPoolContextSwitcher : INotifyCompletion
{
public ThreadPoolContextSwitcher GetAwaiter()
{
return this;
}
public bool IsCompleted
{
get
{
return false;
}
}
public void OnCompleted(Action action)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(_ => action(), null);
}
public void GetResult()
{
}
}
This would allow me to write code like this:
public async void Test()
{
await ContextSwitcher.SwitchToThreadPool(); // ensure we're not bogging down the UI thread
// do some heavy processing
await _UIContext.SwitchTo(); // presumably saved from the main thread
// update UI with new data
}

Stephen Toub has some more information on the reasoning in this thread.
To summarize, it's not a good idea for two reasons:
It promotes unstructured code. If you have "heavy processing" that you need to do, it should be placed in a Task.Run. Even better, separate your business logic from your UI logic.
Error handling and (some) continuations run in an unknown context. catch/finally blocks in Test would need to handle running in a thread pool or UI context (and if they're running in the thread pool context, they can't use SwitchTo to jump on the UI context). Also, as long as you await the returned Task you should be OK (await will correct the continuation context if necessary), but if you have explicit ContinueWith continuations that use ExecuteSynchronously, then they'll have the same problem as the catch/finally blocks.
In short, the code is cleaner and more predictable without SwitchTo.

ConfigureAwait is actually more dangerous than SwitchTo. Mentally tracking the current context and the last SwitchTo call is no more difficult than tracking where a variable was last assigned. On the other hand, ConfigureAwait switches context if and only if the call actually ran asynchronously. If the task was already completed, the context is preserved. You have no control over this.

It's 2020 and it looks like SwitchTo is set to come back to CLR soon, according to David Fowler and Stephen Toub in this GitHub issue, as there's no more limitations for await inside try/catch.
IMO, using something like await TaskScheduler.Default.SwitchTo() explicitly is better than relying upon ConfigureAwait(false) in the 3rd party library code, especially if we want to make sure that code doesn't execute on any custom synchronization context. I have a blog post with more details on that, including an experimental implementation of SwitchTo.
In a nutshell, I believe the first option from the below clearly indicates the intent, with minimum boilerplate code:
// switch to the thread pool explicitly for the rest of the async method
await TaskScheduler.Default.SwitchTo();
await RunOneWorkflowAsync();
await RunAnotherWorkflowAsync();
// execute RunOneWorkflowAsync on the thread pool
// and stay there for the rest of the async method
await Task.Run(RunOneWorkflowAsync).ConfigureAwait(false);
await RunAnotherWorkflowAsync();
await Task.Run(async () =>
{
// start on the thread pool
await RunOneWorkflowAsync();
await RunAnotherWorkflowAsync();
}).ConfigureAwait(false);
// continue on the thread pool for the rest of the async method
// start on whatever the current synchronization context is
await RunOneWorkflowAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
// continue on the thread pool for the rest of the async method,
// unless everything inside `RunOneWorkflowAsync` has completed synchronously
await RunAnotherWorkflowAsync();

The SwitchTo extension method is available in the Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading package. Here is the signature of this method:
public static
Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading.AwaitExtensions.TaskSchedulerAwaitable
SwitchTo(this System.Threading.Tasks.TaskScheduler scheduler,
bool alwaysYield = false);
And here is an example of how to use it:
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.Threading;
private async void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var ui = TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext(); // Capture the UI thread
// Do something on the UI thread
await TaskScheduler.Default.SwitchTo(); // Switch to the ThreadPool
// Do something on the ThreadPool
await ui.SwitchTo(); // Switch back to the UI thread
// Do something on the UI thread
}