Develop Reference

Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvoke Not Invoking

I have a FileSystemWatcher and the events raised by this when a watched file changes are raised on a different thread from the UI thread. To avoid and cross-thread acess volation fun, I am attempting to use
public void RaisePathChanged(object sender, RenamedEventArgs e)
{
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
// Some code to handle the file state change here.
}));
}
This compiles fine and the RaisePathChanged is fired as it should be. However, the code inside the delegate Action(() => { /*Here*/ }) never gets called/invoked, the code is merely skipped.
Why is the code being skipped, how can I fix it and is this the best way to insure code is run on the thread that created it in WPF?
Thanks for your time.

You are mixing up things.
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher is not the same as Application.Current.Dispatcher.
The second one is the one you seem to be looking for.
Take a look at this.
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher vs. Application.Current.Dispatcher
Try it out with application dispatcher.

Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher is the dispatcher of the "current" thread - in this case the thread RaisePathChanged is executing on.
When you say Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher .NET will create a new dispatcher if there was none.
It will however not Run() said dispatcher!
So when you schedule something on it (with BeginInvoke) it will not actually be executed unless that dispatcher is running.
That likely answers your first question (Why is it not Invoking?)
To avoid cross-thread access violation, you need the dispatcher of the thread that created whatever you are trying to protect and make sure it is a running dispatcher.
If whatever you are trying to protect was created on the default GUI thread, then use Application.Current.Dispatcher like the previous answer says, otherwise you will need to do a bit more explaining and post a bit more code before we can answer your second question. http://www.diranieh.com/NET_WPF/Threading.htm has a pretty short intro into the subject.

Why do I not get the "Cross-thread operation not valid" error

I use a BackgroundWorker and do this:
private void loadNewAsyncToolStripMenuItem_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.Text = "RunWorkerAsync()";
backgroundWorkerLoading.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void backgroundWorkerLoading_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
UnsafeThreadMethod("hello");
EvenUnsaferThreadMethod();
}
And now the two methods.
private void UnsafeThreadMethod(string text)
{
toolStripLabelRssFeedData.Text = text;
}
private void EvenUnsaferThreadMethod()
{
panelLoading.Visible = true;
}
I don't understand why UnsafeThreadMethod doesn't throw the following exception but EvenUnsaferThreadMethod does.
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'panelLoading' accessed from a thread other than the > thread it was created on.
According to the message it's because toolStripLabelRssFeedData was created on the same thread but it wasn't.
I thought that I can't call controls created by the main thread and have to use the ProgressChanged event. What's going on?
And I have a second question. What is the advantage of doing it like this when I can use ProgressChanged? What should I do?
private void EvenUnsaferThreadMethod()
{
if (panelLoading.InvokeRequired)
{
panelLoading.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(() => { EvenUnsaferThreadMethod(); }));
}
else
{
panelLoading.Visible = true;
}
}

To the first question:
the cross-thread exception is deliberately thrown in Debug mode. This means there is (conditional) code checking on InvokeRequired built into most of the GUI controls. Like the Panel.
Apparently the ToolstripLabel does not make this check. Since it does not derive from Control that could be because it is outside the scope of this safety net.
Since the standard disclaimer "Any instance members are not guaranteed to be thread safe" applies to the ToolstripLabel I would just go with the normal InvokeRequired logic when setting the Text.

For your first question, I am not entirely sure, but a review from online seems to show that sometimes this will not throw an exception, but it will not update the label. Is that the case here? Is your label being updated along with having no exception?
However, I can answer you second question right now. The ProgressChanged event is meant for exactly what it sounds like. It is supposed to be called to let the UI thread know the status of the backgroundworker so that it can update itself appropriately. The original calling thread (UI in this case) is the one that is used for the ProgressChanged, so when it updates it does not need to call Invoke. But, this should really only be done for showing the progress of a background worker.
Now, if it is not an update that you are trying to pass to the calling method, then I would suggest just passing your return data back through the RunWorkerCompleted event. This passes all of your final data back up to the original (UI) thread, so that it can update the UI without any need for an Invoke.
So, yes your call to Invoke will work, though. However, understanding what each of the other events are for can help you understand why to use one way over another. Maybe a ProgressChanged event fits better? It can also declutter your code from having unnecessary invokes.
Update to first q
I still cannot find anything about the toolstrip not needing the invoke. In fact I am finding the opposite using google searches like "toolstriplabel no cross thread exception" or "toolstriplabel invoke", etc. However, as henk mentioned, the toolstriplabel doesn't inherit from control so that might explain why no invoke is required. However, my suggestion is to assume that it will act like any other UI control and make sure it is updated on the UI thread to be safe. do not rely on quirks. Better safe than sorry, you never know if things like this might change, especially since it is logically a UI item to most..,

The advantage of your second choice is that it works :)
All UI elements are created on main UI thread and, what is more important from this question perspective, is that can be acessed only within that thread.
This is the reason why your first case fails and that is the reason your second case will work. Invoke()... will redirect required merhod call to the main UI thread.
Hope this helps.

How can a function be triggered with an event?

I have an application wherein I would like a function to be executed in the same thread when an event is fired. For example:
SomeCode()
{
// Do something...
// Fire event to run SomeOtherCode().
}
SomeOtherCode()
{
// Do something else...
}
I do not want to simply call the function because it will hold things up. SomeOtherFuction() needs to be executed in the same thread because it needs to access the form controls, and I need it to begin execution from an event trigger firing. I am using Microsoft Visual C# 2008 Express Edition. Thanks.
::: EDIT:::
Additional Details: The bottom line is that the contrustor of my form application is taking far too long to complete, and it is causing a significant delay, from when the user launches the application to when the application window appears on the display. This is not a problem on faster computers, but on slower computers it is a big problem. I need to exit the contrustor as soon as possible, thus allowing the framework to draw the application window, and continue initialization outside the constructor. (All essential items would still be initialized inside the constructor.)
An event-triggered function call would be ideal. I would prefer not to use a timer. Interlacing the affected code with Invokes is impractical in my situation and would require much more time to implement than I have to work on this. A simple example of an event-driven function call is all I'm really looking for. Thanks.

From your posts it's seems like you're confusing a few issues. The standard pattern in .Net is for events to run synchronously. The following lines are essentially identical in terms of when they execute.
Option #1
SomeCode();
SomeOtherCode();
Option #2
SomeEvent += delegate { SomeOtherCode(); }
...
SomeCode();
SomeEvent(this,EventArgs.Empty);
If you want to unblock the UI thread and run the code later you'll need to use some mechanism to delay the running of the SomeOtherCode function. The easiest way to do this in a WinForms application is to use a WinForms Timer instance. This will raise an event on the UI thread at a later point in time that you can respond to. It also won't block the UI thread during this time allowing your form to continue processing.

You seem to be asking to run SomeOtherCode() later.
You can call BeginInvoke (either from the UI thread or from any other thread) to queue a function to run during the next message loop:
BeginInvoke(new Action(SomeOtherCode));

It seems that you would want to add an event to the class that exposes the SomeCode method. Then, the class that implements the SomeOtherCode method would attach an event handler that calls the SomeOtherCode method.
It's completely viable to have this done in one class, in case you have some sort of state model where you want to add/remove the call depending on some other logic.

I think you want to put SomeOtherCode into a Task or BackgroundWorker, which would then synchronize with the UI thread to send it updates.
I recently posted on my blog a class that makes updating the UI from a Task as easy as from a BGW. I do recommend using Task rather than BackgroundWorker.

Simialr to what Stephen said, I would recommend that you move as much of that initialization code to a background thread or task. Let the background thread do as much work as possible, then send the necessary window updates to your UI thread via Action<>'s. Here's some quick psuedo-sample code:
protected void LoadMyListInBackground(object state)
{
List<string> myList = Databse.FetchMyList(myParameters); // This take a while, so the UI thread isn't waiting
ShowMyList(myList);
}
protected void ShowMyList(List<string> theList)
{
if(InvokeRequired)
Invoke(new Action<List<string>>(ShowMyList, theList);
else
{
foreach(string item in theList)
myListBox.Items.Add(item);
}
}
In this example the UI thread is free to keep drawing your window while the background thread does the lengthy database work. The problem is, even if you fire an event outside of your constructor, and that event occurs on the UI thread and takes a long time, the user might see the window but that window is going to 'freeze' and possibly appear to be 'crashed' to the user. This technique prevents that and provides a better user experience.

Forcing code execution on main thread

How can I force a section of code to be executed on my main thread?
This is why I'd like to know:
I have a custom created message box that at times gets shown from a thread that is not the main thread. However, when the message box constructor is called I get an InvalidOperationException saying "The calling thread must be STA, because many UI components require this." This makes sense, UI elements need to be handled on the main thread.
My MessageBox.ShowMessage(...) function is a static function that creates an instance of my custom message box and shows it. Is there a something I could put in ShowMessage that would force the message box to be created and shown on the main thread? Elsewhere in my code I use the Control.BeginInvoke to handle similar issues, but since it is a static function there is no already existing UI element for me to call BeginInvoke on.
Do I have to call MessageBox.ShowMessage from with a Control.BeginInvoke? I'd prefer the BeginInvoke (or some equivalent) to be called from within ShowMessage.

There are a few options here:
make the second thread STA (you can only do this for your own Thread - not for ThreadPool threads) - via .SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
see if SynchronizationContext.Current is non-null; if so, use Send/Post
pass the form/control in as an ISynchronizeInvoke instance (may not apply to WPF - I'm not 100% sure)

Your thinking is right -- in order to get it to work properly, you're going to need to get it called from the main thread.
The simplest way? When you start your main form, save a reference in a static variable that is visible to your ShowMessage() call. Then, your ShowMessage can do the standard:
if(myForm.InvokeRequired)
{
myForm.Invoke(() => ShowMessage(arg1,arg2,arg3));
return;
}
.... other code here....

Instead of directly showing the message box, just send a message to your main thread, which signals the main thread to display a message box.

Invoke() is blocking

From time to time my applications GUI stops redrawing.
There a lot of threads that are firing all kinds of events (like timers or network data ready etc.). Also there are a lot of controls that are subscribing these events. Because of that, all the event handlers play the InvokeRequired/Invoke game.
Now I figured out that when the GUI freezes a lot of threads are waiting for Invoke() to return. Looks like the message pump stopped pumping.
The handlers look like this:
private void MyEventHandler( object sender, EventArgs e ) {
if ( InvokeRequired ) {
Invoke( new EventHandler( MyEventHandler ), sender, e );
return;
}
SetSomeStateVariable();
Invalidate();
}
Any ideas?
Solution: BeginInvoke(). Looks like you should always use BeginInvoke() if you have lots of CrossThread-Events...
Thanks.
Thanks everybody.
EDIT: Looks like BeginInvoke() really solved it. No freezing until now.

Invoke waits until the event is handled in the GUI thread. If you want it to be asynchronous use BeginInvoke()

Deadlock perhaps? Do you make sure that the events are never fired while holding a lock?
Are you able to see this with a debugger attached? If so, make it freeze and then hit the "pause" button - and see what the UI thread is doing.
Note that if you are able to get away with BeginInvoke instead of Invoke, life is a bit easier as it won't block.
Also note that you don't need the "new EventHandler" bit - just
Invoke((EventHandler) MyEventHandler, sender, e);
should be fine.

From watching this question, I can see that you're not going to get any answers that will fix the problem immediately, as most of them require you to debug the event, and it happens so infrequently that this is nearly impossible. So, let me suggest you make some code changes that might help you identify the culprit in the field.
I suggest that you create a static class whose sole purpose is to handle all your Invoke calls. I would suggest that this class has a method that takes a Control, (to call Invoke on) an Action (the method to be invoked), and a description (containing the information you would need to know to identify the method and what it is going to do).
Within the body of this method, I suggest you enqueue this information (method, description) and return immediately.
The queue should be serviced by a single thread, which pops the action/message pair off the queue, records the current time and the Action's description in a pair of properties, and then Invokes() the Action. When the Action returns, the description and time are cleared (your DateTime can be nullable, or set it to DateTime.Max). Note, since all Invokes are marshalled one at a time onto the UI thread, you're not losing anything by servicing the queue by a single thread here.
Now, here's where we get to the point of this. Our Invoking class should have a heartbeat System.Threading.Timer thread. This should NOT be a windows.forms.timer object, as that runs on the UI thread (and would be blocked when the ui is blocked!!!).
The job of this timer is to periodically peek at the time the current Action was Invoked. If DateTime.Now - BeginTime > X, the heartbeat timer will decide that this Action has blocked. The heartbeat timer will LOG (however you log) the DESCRIPTION recorded for that Action. You now have a recording of what was happening at the time your UI locked up and can debug it better.
I know it's not an answer to your problem, but at least by doing this you can get a good idea about what's going on at the time you're blocked.

The most likely answer (deadlock) has already been suggested.
Another way to simulate this behaviour is to reduce the number of pool threads and IO completion ports; you haven't called ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(...) by any chance?