We Keep Coding

How to make sure a task is done before returning from a function?

I have a decent understanding of how Async/Await works in C#.
I understand that when the await keyword is reached, control is given back to the calling function and that is how asynchronous execution is achieved (if I am wrong here, I would appreciate correction and a better explanation).
However I am not sure as to how I would make sure that an async function has finished executing before returning from a function.
Take the example below:
private static async Task<bool> LoadDataIntoLocalAppFile(ZipArchiveEntry entry, string key)
{
try
{
/* SqLiteAsyncConnection is an instance variable in the class that has this function.*/
string pathToUse = "localDatabase.db"
if (SqLiteAsyncConnection != null)
{
await SqLiteAsyncConnection.CloseAsync()
.ContinueWith(x => entry.ExtractToFile(pathToUse, true));
}
else
{
entry.ExtractToFile(pathToUse, true);
}
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Colsole.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
return false;
}
}
In the above code snippet, I want to make sure that my SqLiteAsyncConnection is closed before I replace the data in the .db file with the contents of entry (so that it does not error out). As such I have used ContinueWith (if this is wrong I would appreciate some clarification).
But I also want to ensure that await SqLiteAsyncConnection.CloseAsync().ContinueWith(x => entry.ExtractToFile(pathToUse, true)); finishes its execution before the function returns. That is I want to ensure that this function does not return true inaccurately, and that it does not return true before await SqLiteAsyncConnection.CloseAsync() .ContinueWith(x => entry.ExtractToFile(pathToUse, true)); finishes its execution.
How do I achieve this?

You don't need the ContinueWith when you have await there. You would use ContinueWith if you don't use await, it can be seen as a type of callback once the parent task has completed/failed.
await SqLiteAsyncConnection.CloseAsync()
.ContinueWith(x => entry.ExtractToFile(pathToUse, true));
//can be replaced by
await SqLiteAsyncConnection.CloseAsync();
entry.ExtractToFile(pathToUse, true);
When you hit an await section in your code, your function isn't done, it doesn't return true, it gets suspended in a sense and the control is given back to calling thread. Once all your awaits have completed in the function, only then does it return the result.

When the await keyword is reached, control is given back to the calling function.
I find this commonly used explanation confusing. In simpler terms, the job of an asynchronous method is to create a Task. That's why you call the method, to get a Task back. You get this Task when the first¹ await is reached inside this method. At this point the asynchronous operation has started, and (generally) it has not completed yet. The caller has received the Task that represents the asynchronous operation, and can continue doing other things while the operation is in-flight. In some cases the caller has nothing better to do than wait for the completion of the asynchronous operation, in which case you see this pattern:
await LoadDataIntoLocalAppFile();
Here the caller is itself an asynchronous method. We know it because of the await keyword. The code above is equivalent with this:
Task task = LoadDataIntoLocalAppFile();
await task;
The first line will complete when the first await inside the LoadDataIntoLocalAppFile is reached. The second line will complete when the last line of code inside the LoadDataIntoLocalAppFile has ran.
¹ To be more precise, the first await of a non-completed awaitable.

Your understanding of async/await is incorrect, just awaiting the asynchronous call is enough:
private static async Task<bool> LoadDataIntoLocalAppFile(ZipArchiveEntry entry, string key)
{
try
{
string pathToUse = "localDatabase.db"
await SqLiteAsyncConnection?.CloseAsync();
entry.ExtractToFile(pathToUse, true);
return true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Colsole.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
return false;
}
}
Then call with:
await LoadDataIntoLocalAppFile(...

Concise way to await a canceled Task?

I find myself writing code like this a lot:
try
{
cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
await task.ConfigureAwait(false); // this is the task that was cancelled
}
catch(OperationCanceledException)
{
// Cancellation expected and requested
}
Given that I requested the cancellation, it is expected and I'd really like the exception to be ignored. This seems like a common case.
Is there a more concise way to do this? Have I missed something about cancellation? It seems like there should be a task.CancellationExpected() method or something.

There is a built-in mechanism, the Task.WhenAny method used with a single argument, but it's not very intuitive.
Creates a task that will complete when any of the supplied tasks have completed.
await Task.WhenAny(task); // await the task ignoring exceptions
if (task.IsCanceled) return; // the task is completed at this point
var result = await task; // can throw if the task IsFaulted
It is not intuitive because the Task.WhenAny is normally used with at least two arguments. Also it is slightly inefficient because the method accepts a params Task<TResult>[] tasks argument, so on every invocation an array is allocated in the heap.

I don't think there is anything built-in, but you could capture your logic in extension methods (one for Task, one for Task<T>):
public static async Task IgnoreWhenCancelled(this Task task)
{
try
{
await task.ConfigureAwait(false);
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
}
}
public static async Task<T> IgnoreWhenCancelled<T>(this Task<T> task)
{
try
{
return await task.ConfigureAwait(false);
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
return default;
}
}
Then you can write your code simpler:
await task.IgnoreWhenCancelled();
or
var result = await task.IgnoreWhenCancelled();
(You might still want to add .ConfigureAwait(false) depending on your synchronization needs.)

I assume whatever task is doing uses CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested() to check for cancellation. That throws an exception by design.
So your options are limited. If task is an operation you wrote, you could make it not use ThrowIfCancellationRequested() and instead check IsCancellationRequested and end gracefully when needed. But as you know, the task's status won't be Canceled if you do that.
If it uses code you didn't write, then you don't have a choice. You'll have to catch the exception. You can use extension methods to avoid repeating code (Matt's answer), if you want. But you'll have to catch it somewhere.

The cancellation pattern available in C# in called cooperative cancellation.
This basically means that, in order to cancel any operation, there should be two actors which need to collaborate. One of them is the actor requesting the cancellation and the other is the actor listening to cancellation requests.
In order to implement this pattern you need an instance of CancellationTokenSource, which is an object that you can use in order to get an instance of CancellationToken. The cancellation is requested on the CancellationTokenSource instance and is propagated to the CancellationToken.
The following piece of code shows you this pattern in action and hopefully clarifies your doubt about cancellation:
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApp2
{
public static class Program
{
public static async Task Main(string[] args)
{
using (var cts = new CancellationTokenSource())
{
CancellationToken token = cts.Token;
// start the asyncronous operation
Task<string> getMessageTask = GetSecretMessage(token);
// request the cancellation of the operation
cts.Cancel();
try
{
string message = await getMessageTask.ConfigureAwait(false);
Console.WriteLine($"Operation completed successfully before cancellation took effect. The message is: {message}");
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine("The operation has been canceled");
}
catch (Exception)
{
Console.WriteLine("The operation completed with an error before cancellation took effect");
throw;
}
}
}
static async Task<string> GetSecretMessage(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
// simulates asyncronous work. notice that this code is listening for cancellation
// requests
await Task.Delay(500, cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
return "I'm lost in the universe";
}
}
}
Pay attention to the comment and notice that all the 3 outputs for the program are possible.
There is no way to predict which of them will be the actual program result.
The point is that when you await for the task completion you don't know what actually is going to happen. The operation may succeeds or fails before the cancellation took effect, or maybe the cancellation request can be observed by the operation before it runs to completion or fails for an error. From the calling code point of view, all these outcomes are possible and you have no way to make a guess. You need to handle all cases.
So, basically, your code is correct and you are handling the cancellation the way you should.
This book is an excellent reference to learn these things.

My final solution was to create an extension method as suggested by Matt Johnson-Pint. However, I return a boolean indicating whether the task was canceled as shown in Vasil Oreshenski's answer.
public static async Task<bool> CompletionIsCanceledAsync(this Task task)
{
if (task.IsCanceled) return true;
try
{
await task.ConfigureAwait(false);
return false;
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
return true;
}
}
This method has been fully unit tested. I picked the name to be similar to the WaitForCompletionStatus() method in the ParallelExtensionsExtras sample code and the IsCanceled property.

If you are expecting the task to be cancelled BEFORE the await you should check the state of the cancellation token source.
if (cancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested == false)
{
await task;
}
EDIT: As mentioned in the comments this won't do any good if the task is cancelled while awaited.
EDIT 2: This approach is overkill because it acquires additional resource - in hot path this may have performance hit. (i am using SemaphoreSlim but you can use another sync. primitive with the same success)
This is an extension method over existing task. The extension method will return new task which holds information if the original task was cancelled.
public static async Task<bool> CancellationExpectedAsync(this Task task)
{
using (var ss = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 1))
{
var syncTask = ss.WaitAsync();
task.ContinueWith(_ => ss.Release());
await syncTask;
return task.IsCanceled;
}
}
Here is a simple usage:
var cancelled = await originalTask.CancellationExpectedAsync();
if (cancelled) {
// do something when cancelled
}
else {
// do something with the original task if need
// you can acccess originalTask.Result if you need
}
How it works:
Overall it waits for the original task to complete and returns information if was cancelled. The SemaphoraSlim is usually used to limit the access to some resource(expensive) but in this case i am using it to await until the original task has finished.
Notes:
It does not returns the original task. So if you need something that has been returned from it you should inspect the original task.

Task being marked as RanToCompletion at await, when still Running

I'm still getting up to speed with async & multi threading. I'm trying to monitor when the Task I Start is still running (to show in a UI). However it's indicating that it is RanToCompletion earlier than I want, when it hits an await, even when I consider its Status as still Running.
Here is the sample I'm doing. It all seems to be centred around the await's. When it hits an await, it is then marked as RanToCompletion.
I want to keep track of the main Task which starts it all, in a way which indicates to me that it is still running all the way to the end and only RanToCompletion when it is all done, including the repo call and the WhenAll.
How can I change this to get the feedback I want about the tskProdSeeding task status?
My Console application Main method calls this:
Task tskProdSeeding;
tskProdSeeding = Task.Factory.StartNew(SeedingProd, _cts.Token);
Which the runs this:
private async void SeedingProd(object state)
{
var token = (CancellationToken)state;
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
int totalSeeded = 0;
var codesToSeed = await _myRepository.All().ToListAsync(token);
await Task.WhenAll(Task.Run(async () =>
{
foreach (var code in codesToSeed)
{
if (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
int seedCountByCode = await _myManager.SeedDataFromLive(code);
totalSeeded += seedCountByCode;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.InfoFormat(ex.ToString());
}
}
}
}, token));
Thread.Sleep(30000);
}
}

If you use async void the outer task can't tell when the task is finished, you need to use async Task instead.
Second, once you do switch to async Task, Task.Factory.StartNew can't handle functions that return a Task, you need to switch to Task.Run(
tskProdSeeding = Task.Run(() => SeedingProd(_cts.Token), _cts.Token);
Once you do both of those changes you will be able to await or do a .Wait() on tskProdSeeding and it will properly wait till all the work is done before continuing.
Please read "Async/Await - Best Practices in Asynchronous Programming" to learn more about not doing async void.
Please read "StartNew is Dangerous" to learn more about why you should not be using StartNew the way you are using it.
P.S. In SeedingProd you should switch it to use await Task.Delay(30000); insetad of Thread.Sleep(30000);, you will then not tie up a thread while it waits. If you do this you likely could drop the
tskProdSeeding = Task.Run(() => SeedingProd(_cts.Token), _cts.Token);
and just make it
tskProdSeeding = SeedingProd(_cts.Token);
because the function no-longer has a blocking call inside of it.

I'm not convinced that you need a second thread (Task.Run or StartNew) at all. It looks like the bulk of the work is I/O-bound and if you're doing it asynchronously and using Task.Delay instead of Thread.Sleep, then there is no thread consumed by those operations and your UI shouldn't freeze. The first thing anyone new to async needs to understand is that it's not the same thing as multithreading. The latter is all about consuming more threads, the former is all about consuming fewer. Focus on eliminating the blocking and you shouldn't need a second thread.
As others have noted, SeedingProd needs to return a Task, not void, so you can observe its completion. I believe your method can be reduced to this:
private async Task SeedingProd(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
int totalSeeded = 0;
var codesToSeed = await _myRepository.All().ToListAsync(token);
foreach (var code in codesToSeed)
{
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
try
{
int seedCountByCode = await _myManager.SeedDataFromLive(code);
totalSeeded += seedCountByCode;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.InfoFormat(ex.ToString());
}
}
await Task.Dealy(30000);
}
}
Then simply call the method, without awaiting it, and you'll have your task.
Task mainTask = SeedingProd(token);

When you specify async on a method, it compiles into a state machine with a Task, so SeedingProd does not run synchronously, but acts as a Task even if returns void. So when you call Task.Factory.StartNew(SeedingProd) you start a task that kick off another task - that's why the first one finishes immediately before the second one. All you have to do is add the Task return parameter instead of void:
private async Task SeedingProdAsync(CancellationToken ct)
{
...
}
and call it as simply as this:
Task tskProdSeeding = SeedingProdAsync(_cts.Token);

getAsync("Text") vs getAsync("text", cancellationToken)

I am using the oneDrive API aka Live SDK. using c# and XAML you can issue http GET request using the above mentioned method like so:
case A:
public async void methodA()
{
try
{
var meResult = await connectClient.GetAsync("me");
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//exception handling
}
doSomething();
}
Case B:
public async void methodB()
{
try
{
var meResult = await connectClient.GetAsync("me", token);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
//exception handling
}
doSomething();
}
where token is cancellationToken; that will wait for specific time and then cancel the request.
if there is no internet connection:
In case A the methodA() will hang on the getAsync and never progress so the doSomething() method is never called.
In case B the methodB() will handle the exception when the cancellationToken cancel the call then progress to the doSomething() method.
Now my concern and my question is:
I am afraid that keeping the await call hanging there will mean locking one thread and will affect the performance especially if the user clicked the button many times to call the methodA().
Is my concern justified?
is there a way for the .NET runtime to know that this awaited operation is timed out?? and eventually cancel it?

If you want to pass in a CancellationToken that times out after a certain amount of time, there is a constructor for CancellationTokenSource that does just that:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
var meResult = await connectClient.GetAsync("me", cts.Token);
By the way, even if you don't do this, a .NET thread won't be locked while you wait for GetAsync to finish - that's one of the direct benefits of using await instead of .Result.
Related article by Stephen Toub: Coalescing CancellationTokens from Timeouts

Running several infinite loops with async/await

I am developing android messanger app based on xamarin and .net 5 async/awaits.
In my app i have producer/consumer pattern for processing messages which is made on infinite loops.
for example ReadTcpClientAsync producer:
async Task ReadTcpClientAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
cde.Signal();
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
byte[] buffer = await atc.ReadAsync(cancellationToken);
// queue message...
}
}
or SendStatementsAsync consumer which deque messages and awaits WriteAsync
private async Task SendStatementsAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var nextItem = await _outputStatements.Take();
cancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// misc ...
await atc.WriteAsync(call.Serialize());
}
}
and some consumers just await on Take calls
var update = await _inputUpdateStatements.Take();
this construction works pretty well on tests, but there is one method where i think i made a huge mistake.
this method intent to run entire client backend, starting 3 pro/con while (true) loops simultaneously.
here it is:
public async Task RunAsync()
{
_isRunning = true;
_progress.ProgressChanged += progress_ProgressChanged;
await InitMTProto(_scheme).ConfigureAwait(false); // init smth...
// various init stuf...
await atc.ConnectAsync().ConfigureAwait(false); // open connection async
// IS IT WRONG?
try
{
await Task.WhenAny(SendStatementsAsync(_cts.Token),
ReadTcpClientAsync(_cts.Token),
ProcessUpdateAsync(_cts.Token, _progress)).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
catch (OperationCanceledException oce)
{
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
Forget about android for now, think any UI (WinForm, WPF, etc) OnCreate method in UI context to call RunAsync
protected async override void OnCreate(Bundle bundle)
{
// start RA
await client.RunAsync()
// never gets here - BAD, but nonblock UI thread - good
Debug.WriteLine("nevar");
}
so, as you can see there is a problem. I can't do anything after RunAsync await call because it will never returns from Task.WhenAny(...). And i need perform status check there, but i need this pro/cons methods started, because my check wait on ManualResetEvent for it:
if (!cde.Wait(15000))
{
throw new TimeoutException("Init too long");
}
Also, my check is async too, and it works like a charm :)
public async Task<TLCombinatorInstance> PerformRpcCall(string combinatorName, params object[] pars)
{
// wait for init on cde ...
// prepare call ...
// Produce
ProduceOutput(call);
// wait for answer
return await _inputRpcAnswersStatements.Take();
}
I think i should use another approach for starting this infinite loops, but i already have async Task methods all the way - so i really have no idea what to do.
Any help please?

Ok, after a lot of reading (nothing found) and #svick's advice i decided to call this methods without "await" as separate Task.Run's.
Aso i decided to run it in ThreadPool.
My final code is:
try
{
/*await Task.WhenAny(SendStatementsAsync(_cts.Token),
ReadTcpClientAsync(_cts.Token),
ProcessUpdateAsync(_cts.Token, _progress)).ConfigureAwait(false);*/
Task.Run(() => SendStatementsAsync(_cts.Token)).ConfigureAwait(false);
Task.Run(() => ReadTcpClientAsync(_cts.Token)).ConfigureAwait(false);
Task.Run(() => ProcessUpdateAsync(_cts.Token, _progress)).ConfigureAwait(false);
Trace.WriteLineIf(clientSwitch.TraceInfo, "Worker threads started", "[Client.RunAsync]");
}
Everything works fine as expected..
i'm not sure what problems it will cause in exception handling, as i know they will be lost
Of course such calls produce warning
Because this call is not awaited, execution of the current method
continues before the call is completed. Consider applying the 'await'
operator to the result of the call.
which can be easily suppressed this way
// just save task into variable
var send = Task.Run(() => SendStatementsAsync(_cts.Token)).ConfigureAwait(false);
Also, if anyone know better solution i will be grateful to hear it.