We Keep Coding

Terminate Window on another thread

I have a simple C# winform app where I spawn a new thread to show another winform. After a process is completed i want to close that form using the below code. The issue I have is that when I call busyForm.BeginInvoke it is bypassing the null check and throw and error. How to correctly close the winform in another thread?
static Indicator busyForm;
public static async Task Execute()
{
Thread busyIndicatorthread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(()=>FormThread()));
busyIndicatorthread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
busyIndicatorthread.Start();
}
private static void FormThread()
{
busyForm = new Indicator();
busyForm.Closed += (sender2, e2) => busyForm.Dispatcher.InvokeShutdown();
Dispatcher.Run();
}
public static Task Execute(){
Thread busyIndicatorthread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(()=>FormThread(hwind)));
busyIndicatorthread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
busyIndicatorthread.Start();
// dos some stuff
if (busyForm != null)
{
busyForm.BeginInvoke(new System.Action(() => busyForm.Close())); <--- throw null error
busyForm = null;
}
}

That is because before calling .Close() method, time has passed and it is not assured that busyForm exists anymore.
In fact, it is possible that, while the new System.Action(() => busyForm.Close() thread is starting, you main thread goes to busyForm = null;.
You can try moving the null to secondary thread.
if (busyForm != null)
{
busyForm.BeginInvoke(new System.Action(() =>
{
lock(busyForm){
busyForm.Close();
busyForm = null;
}
}));
}

Almost no application starts another message pump to display notifications. It's not needed. In all applications, the busy and progress dialog boxes are generated and displayed.by the UI thread. Operations that could block are performed in the background, eg in a background thread or far better, using async/await and Task.Run. The UI is updated using events or callbacks, eg using the Progress< T> class.
In this case though, it seems all that's needed is to display a form before a long-running task and hide it afterward:
public async void btnDoStuff_Async(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
//Disable controls, display indicator, etc
btnDoStuff.Enabled=false;
using var busyForm = new Indicator();
busyForm.Show();
try
{
var result=await Task.Run(()=> ActuallyDoStuffAndReturnResult());
//Back in the UI form
//Do something with the result
}
finally
{
//Close the busy indicator, re-enable buttons etc.
busyForm.Close();
btnDoStuff.Enabled=true;
}
}
The finally block ensures the UI is enabled and the busy form hidden even in case of error.
20+ years ago some Visual Basic 6 applications did start another Window message pump to act as a "server". Visual Basic 6 threading was very quirky, so people used various tricks to get around its limitations.

When you write this code:
busyForm.BeginInvoke(new System.Action(() => busyForm.Close())); <--- throw null error
busyForm = null;
The order in which it executes is almost certainly this:
busyForm = null;
busyForm.Close();
No wonder you're getting a null reference exception!
Simply set the form to null in your invoke. That'll fix it.
However, the correct way to do this is as Panagiotis Kanavos suggests.

Joining a worker thread in a windows forms app

My program works like this:
I press a radio button which opens the port.
Next i press a button "Read" which starts a thread that reads data continously from the Serial Port using port.ReadLine() and prints it in a textbox;
I have another radio which should first join the thread and after that close the port;the problem is the printing goes well until i close the port when the UI freezes.
public Form1()
{
mythread = new Thread(ReadFct);
myPort = new SerialPort("COM3", 9600);
myPort.ReadTimeout = 3500;
InitializeComponent();
foreach (var t in Constants.ComboParameters)
this.paramCombo.Items.Add(t);
radioClose.CheckedChanged += new EventHandler(radioButtonCheckedChanged);
radioOpen.CheckedChanged += new EventHandler(radioButtonCheckedChanged);
}
Below is the function attached to the thread
void ReadFct()
{
string aux = "";
while (readCondition)
{
if (myPort.IsOpen)
aux = myPort.ReadLine();
this.SetText(aux);
}
}
Below is the radio button event handler
public void radioButtonCheckedChanged(object sender,EventArgs e)
{
if (radioOpen.Checked && !myPort.IsOpen)
try
{
myPort.Open();
mythread.Start();
}
catch (Exception)
{
MessageBox.Show("Nu s-a putut deschide port-ul");
}
if (radioClose.Checked && myPort.IsOpen)
{
readCondition = false;
mythread.Join();
myPort.Close();
// myPort.DataReceived -= DataReceivedHandler;
}
}
The read button function:
private void readbtn_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!myPort.IsOpen)
MessageBox.Show("PORT NOT OPENED!");
else
{
// myPort.DataReceived += new SerialDataReceivedEventHandler(DataReceivedHandler);
readCondition = true;
if (!mythread.IsAlive)
{
mythread = new Thread(ReadFct);
mythread.Start();
}
}
I have used what MSDN suggest when changing control from another thread:
private void SetText(string text)
{
if (this.textBox1.InvokeRequired)
{
StringTb del = new StringTb(SetText);
this.Invoke(del, new object[] { text });
}
else
SetData = text;
}

It's hard to know exactly what you need, lacking a good Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable code example to illustrate the question. That said, the issue here is that the Thread.Join() method causes that thread to stop doing any other work, and the thread you use to call that method is the thread that handles all of the user interface. Worse, if your port never receives another newline, the thread you're waiting on will never terminate, because you're stuck waiting on the ReadLine() method. Even worse, even if you do get a newline, if that happens while you're stuck waiting on the Thread.Join(), the call to Invoke() will deadlock, because it needs the UI thread to do its work, and the Thread.Join() call is preventing it from getting the UI thread.
In other words, your code has multiple problems, any one of which could cause problems, but all of which together mean it just can't possibly work.
There are a variety of strategies to fix this, but IMHO the best is to use await. The first step in doing that is to change your I/O handling so that it's done asynchronously instead of dedicating a thread to it:
// Ideally, you should rename this method to "ReadFctAsync". I am leaving
// all names intact for the same of the example though.
async Task ReadFct()
{
string aux = "";
using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(myPort.BaseStream))
{
while (true)
{
aux = await reader.ReadLineAsync();
// This will automatically work, because the "await" will automatically
// resume the method execution in the UI thread where you need it.
this.SetText(aux);
}
}
}
Then, instead of creating a thread explicitly, just create a Task object by calling the above:
public Form1()
{
// In this approach, you can get rid of the "mythread" field altogether
myPort = new SerialPort("COM3", 9600);
myPort.ReadTimeout = 3500;
InitializeComponent();
foreach (var t in Constants.ComboParameters)
this.paramCombo.Items.Add(t);
radioClose.CheckedChanged += new EventHandler(radioButtonCheckedChanged);
radioOpen.CheckedChanged += new EventHandler(radioButtonCheckedChanged);
}
public async void radioButtonCheckedChanged(object sender,EventArgs e)
{
if (radioOpen.Checked && !myPort.IsOpen)
{
try
{
myPort.Open();
await ReadFct();
// Execution of this method will resume after the ReadFct() task
// has completed. Which it will do only on throwing an exception.
// This code doesn't have any continuation after the "await", except
// to handle that exception.
}
catch (Exception)
{
// This block will catch the exception thrown when the port is
// closed. NOTE: you should not catch "Exception". Figure out what
// *specific* exceptions you expect to happen and which you can
// handle gracefully. Any other exception can mean big trouble,
// and doing anything other than logging and terminating the process
// can lead to data corruption or other undesirable behavior from
// the program.
MessageBox.Show("Nu s-a putut deschide port-ul");
}
// Return here. We don't want the rest of the code executing after the
// continuation, because the radio button state might have changed
// by then, and we really only want this call to do work for the button
// that was selected when the method was first called. Note that it
// is probably even better if you just break this into two different
// event handlers, one for each button that might be checked.
return;
}
if (radioClose.Checked && myPort.IsOpen)
{
// Closing the port should cause `ReadLineAsync()` to throw an
// exception, which will terminate the read loop and the ReadFct()
// task
myPort.Close();
}
}
In the above, I have completely ignored the readbtn_Click() method. Lacking a good MCVE, it's not clear what role that button plays in the overall scheme. You seem to have a radio button group (of two buttons) that control whether the port is open or closed. It is not clear why then you have an additional regular button that is seemingly able to also open the port and start reading, independently of the radio group.
If you want that extra button, it seems to me that all it ought to do is change the radio group state, by checking the "open" radio button. Then let the radio group buttons handle the port state and reading. If you need more specific advice as to how to fully integrate my code example above with your entire UI, you will need to provide more detail, preferably in a new question. That new question must include a good MCVE.

c# - How to force closing of background worker that run it own threads

I have wpf application, lets call it A-app. A-app runs asyncronic B-method with a background worker. That B-method is located at a different project, and it creates few threads for the B-method init part.
User can ask to run the B-method and can ask to cancel the run and restart.
The problem is that if it is cancelled in the init time, the background worker, which run the B-method is cancelled, but the threads are not.
Restarting creates more thread that cannot work at the same time as the threads from previous run, and it couse some bugs.
Threads method is mostly waiting.
How can I stop the B-method and also cancel the threads it created?
Is a different AppDomain could help in any way? (and than close the whole app domain?) If yes, that how should it be done?
Is there a better way?
More details:
The B-method runs tests on some devices (could be many). the init of the method is connecting to devices - i/o - so most time is spend on waiting (this is the reason we decided to make the connection init parallel).tring to connect to the same device from 2 different threads may cause problems.

I would suggest you don't create Threads at all but use the TaskScheduler and work with the Parallel Task Library:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997402%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
The TaskScheduler himself is a wrapper for the ThreadPool, which handles the Threads. It even does stuf like WorkStealing, Task Inling etc.
At best you start here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997402%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
Another approach is to start Tasks with a CancalletionToken, which enables you to cancel Tasks. See here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd537607%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
Edit: Okey, no TPL, Blocking Threads. This leaves basically only the Thread.Abort.
This is messy, but there is no perfect world, so think about the Form as Application A, and ClassB is Application B:
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
Thread _threadA;
Thread _threadB;
Thread _threadC;
ClassB b1 = new ClassB();
ClassB b2 = new ClassB();
ClassB b3 = new ClassB();
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
_threadA = new Thread(() => b1.DoSomeWork("A"));
_threadB = new Thread(() => b2.DoSomeWork("B"));
_threadC = new Thread(() => b3.DoSomeWork("C"));
}
private void btnStartWork_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
_threadA.Start();
_threadB.Start();
_threadC.Start();
}
private void btnStopThreadA_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
AbortThreadA();
}
private void btnStopThreadB_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
AbortThreadB();
}
private void btnStopThreadC_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
AbortThreadC();
}
private void AbortThreadA()
{
_threadA.Abort();
}
private void AbortThreadB()
{
_threadB.Abort();
}
private void AbortThreadC()
{
_threadC.Abort();
}
private void btnStopAll_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
AbortThreadA();
AbortThreadB();
AbortThreadC();
}
}
class ClassB
{
public void DoSomeWork(string threadIdentifier)
{
try
{
string preWorkString = "Work work Okeydokey. Thread: " + threadIdentifier;
string postWorkString = "Job's Done. Thread: " + threadIdentifier;
while (true)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(preWorkString);
Thread.Sleep(5000);
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(postWorkString);
}
}
catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Thread aborted. Thread: " + threadIdentifier);
Thread.ResetAbort();
}
}
}
ResetAbort is needed, otherwise the Error gets bubbled.
Is that a possible solution?

Do you own B-method (ie can you change it?)
I'm assuming B-method is not intrinsically cancellable, and you are just cancelling the background worker that calls it in module A?
B-method needs to be changed to either be cancellable, or re-entrant. By re-entrant I mean that it will allow multiple calls to itself, and will re-use any existing init sequence that is already in progress.

Multithreading to speed up load times

I made a program that loads a bunch of computer information. In the Form_Load event I have it initialize 3 (that number will grow) panels of information. One that has a bunch of unit information seems to make the program load rather slowly. I've tried to speed it up a bunch by switching from WMI to using Native calls, which helped a bunch. Soon though I'm going to have network information posted as well. I used to load that panel but i disabled it for a little bit till I work out the bugs in my other panels. So while learning how I can use a seperate thread to update my battery information I figured that I might be able to create seperate threads in my unit information panel so that it might could load faster. I dont know that any of my information would cause concurrent issues, but i can work on that.
I want to start small so what if i change this
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
unitInformationPanel1.PopulateUnitInformation();
batteryInformationPanel1.InitializeBatteries();
magStripeReaderPanel1.SetupPointOfSale();
}
to this
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Thread infoThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(unitInformationPanel1.PopulateUnitInformation));
infoThread.Start();
batteryInformationPanel1.InitializeBatteries();
magStripeReaderPanel1.SetupPointOfSale();
}
would the info thread be terminated when populate unit info is done? or would it be better to move that thread creation into PopulateUnitInformation? here is what it looks like.
public void PopulateUnitInformation()
{
unitModelLabel.Text = Properties.Settings.Default.UnitModelString;
serialNumberLabel.Text = Properties.Settings.Default.UnitSerialString;
biosVersionLabel.Text = UnitBios.GetBiosNumber();
osLabel.Text = OS.getOSString();
cpuLabel.Text = UnitCpu.GetCpuInfo();
var hdd = HddInfo.GetHddInfo();
diskNameLabel.Text = hdd.Name;
diskCapacityLabel.Text = hdd.Capacity;
diskFirmwareLabel.Text = hdd.Firmware;
memoryLabel.Text = MemoryInformation.GetTotalMemory();
NetworkPresenceInformation.GetAdapatersPresent();
biometricLabel.Text = BiometricInformation.IsPresent ? "Present" : "Not Present";
var networkAdaptersPresense = NetworkPresenceInformation.GetAdapatersPresent();
bluetoothLabel.Text = networkAdaptersPresense[0] ? "Present" : "Not Present";
wifiLabel.Text = networkAdaptersPresense[1] ? "Present" : "Not Present";
cellularLabel.Text = networkAdaptersPresense[2] ? "Present" : "Not Present";
}
--
wow i just ran it with the infothread and it still took some time to load (might be the 12 panels i created in the main thread. but it loaded the 12 frames and the unit information panel populated its information after everything loaded. That was cool, but is it safe? is it somewhat easy to make 12 threads for my panels? or is that dumb?
EDIT
this is what i did for stopwatch.
Stopwatch programTimer;
public Form1()
{
programTimer = Stopwatch.StartNew();
InitializeComponent();
SetupDebugWindow();
TerminateKeymon();
UnitModel.SetModel();
UnitSerialNumber.SetSerialNumber();
}
private void Form1_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
audioBrightnessPanel1.UpdateBrightnessTrackbar();
applicationLauncherPanel1.LoadApplications();
programTimer.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Load Time: {0}",programTimer.ElapsedMilliseconds);
timer1.Start();
}
Will this be accurate?
EDIT 2 6/18/2012
Well I took the advice of using backgroundworker. Please let me know if i did this right.
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void BackgroundWorker1DoWork(object sender, System.ComponentModel.DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
unitInformationPanel1.PopulateUnitInformation();
batteryInformationPanel1.InitializeBatteries();
magStripeReaderPanel1.SetupPointOfSale();
}

You've asked a very broad question, but I'm going to give some general advice. If you want more specific information, you should consider deleting this question and posting more specific individual questions.
First and foremost, you should very strongly consider using something like the System.Threading.Task class for your multithreaded operations. There is a ton of information online about how to get started with it and how you can use Tasks to manage asynchronous operations. The short story is that if you're spinning up your own thread (as you're doing above), you almost certainly should be using something else to do that for you.
Adding multithreading to your code will not, in the strictest sense of the word, make it any "faster"; they will always take the same amount of total processor time. What it can and will do is two things: free up the UI thread to be responsive and allow you to split that "total processor time" across multiple cores or processors, should those be available to the system. So, if you have operation X that takes 10 seconds to complete, then just shifting operation X to another thread will not make it complete any faster than 10 seconds.
No, what you are doing above is not safe. I'm assuming that somewhere you've turned off checking for cross-thread communication errors in your app? Otherwise, that code should throw an exception, assuming this is a WinForms or WPF application. This is one reason to use Tasks, as you can easily separate the part of your process that actually takes a long time (or isn't UI related), then add a task continuation that uses the results and populates the UI elements within a properly synchronized context.

So my final approach this was as follows. I felt that my Main Form was doing more than it should. Sticking with the single responsibility principle I decided that MainForm should only be responsible for one thing, showing and displaying all 12 panels (now down to 11, i turned one into a menu item). So moved all the multithreading out of mainform and into program.cs. I found that this was even a little more difficult. What I did find though was a simple solution that allows me to not even worry about multithreading at all. It was the Idle event. Here is what i chose to do.
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
DateTime current = DateTime.Now;
DateTime today = new DateTime(2012,7,19);
TimeSpan span = current.Subtract(today);
if (span.Days<0)
{
MessageBox.Show("Please adjust Time then restart Aspects","Adjust Time");
Process.Start("timedate.cpl").WaitForExit();
}
else
{
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Idle += new EventHandler(Application_Idle);
mainForm = new MainForm();
mainForm.Closing += new CancelEventHandler(mainForm_Closing);
#if !DEBUG
TerminateKeymon();
StartSerial();
SetupDefaultValues();
EmbeddedMessageBox(0);
#endif
Application.Run(mainForm);
}
}
static void Application_Idle(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Application.Idle -= Application_Idle;
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
UnitInformation.SetupUnitInformation();
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
Aspects.Unit.HddInfo.GetHddInfo();
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
for (int i = 0; i < mainForm.Controls.Count; i++)
{
if (mainForm.Controls[i] is AbstractSuperPanel)
{
try
{
var startMe = mainForm.Controls[i] as AbstractSuperPanel;
startMe.StartWorking();
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Increment(1);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message + mainForm.Controls[i].ToString());
}
}
}
mainForm.toolStripProgressBar1.Value = 0;
}
to sum up what that does is is I add a idle listener event. Once the thead goes idle (basically meaning that Mainform is finished drawing and making all 12 panels and is showing on my desktop) I then kill the idle event listener and tell all my panels and classes to start working one at a time, updating my progress bar as I go. It works great. The load time is still the same as it was before, but there is window visibile after only a few seconds. Maybe not the best use of resources, but i think the solution is simple and straight forward.

I had a question somewhat related to this for Mobile app development a few months back (see How to write a Trigger?), and Marc "the man" Gravell posted back with a simple class that I modified to return data to my main application whenever the thread was complete.
The actual class I put into use has loads of pointless data (for you), so I'm going to paste in a revised version of Mr. Gravell's code using techniques which I used to make them work:
First, I had to create my own EventArgs class:
public class SuperEventArgs : EventArgs {
private object data;
public SuperEventArgs(object data) : base() {
this.data = data;
}
public object Data { get { return data; } }
}
Using that, here is a class I created to pass my data back to the main thread:
public delegate event DataChangedHandler(object sender, SuperEventArgs e);
public class Simple1 {
private object parameter1, parameter2;
private Control parent;
#if PocketPC
public delegate void MethodInvoker(); // include this if it is not defined
#endif
public Simple1(Control frmControl, object param1, object param2) {
parent = frmControl;
parameter1 = param1;
parameter2 = param2;
}
public event DataChangedHandler DataChanged;
public void Start() {
object myData = new object(); // whatever this is. DataTable?
try {
// long routine code goes here
} finally {
if (DataChanged != null) {
SuperEventArgs e = new SuperEventArgs(myData);
MethodInvoker methInvoker = delegate {
DataChanged(this, e);
};
try {
parent.BeginInvoke(methInvoker);
} catch (Exception err) {
Log(err); // something you'd write
}
}
}
}
}
Back in the actual main thread of execution, you'd do something like this:
public partial class Form1 : Form {
private Simple1 simple;
public Form1() {
object query = new object(); // something you want to pass in
simple = new Simple1(this, query, DateTime.Now);
simple.DataChanged += new DataChangedHandler(simple1_DataChanged);
Thread thread = new Thread(simpleStart);
thread.Start();
}
private void simpleStart() {
if (simple != null) {
simple.Start();
}
}
private void simple1_DataChanged(object sender, SuperEventArgs e) {
MyFancyData fancy = e.Data as MyFancyData;
if (fancy != null) {
// populate your form with the data you received.
}
}
}
I know it looks long, but it works really well!
This is not anything I have actually tested, of course, because there isn't any data. If you get to working with it and you experience any issues, let me know and I'll happily help you work through them.
~JoeP

How to update UI from another thread running in another class

I am currently writing my first program on C# and I am extremely new to the language (used to only work with C so far). I have done a lot of research, but all answers were too general and I simply couldn't get it t work.
So here my (very common) problem:
I have a WPF application which takes inputs from a few textboxes filled by the user and then uses that to do a lot of calculations with them. They should take around 2-3 minutes, so I would like to update a progress bar and a textblock telling me what the current status is.
Also I need to store the UI inputs from the user and give them to the thread, so I have a third class, which I use to create an object and would like to pass this object to the background thread.
Obviously I would run the calculations in another thread, so the UI doesn't freeze, but I don't know how to update the UI, since all the calculation methods are part of another class.
After a lot of reasearch I think the best method to go with would be using dispatchers and TPL and not a backgroundworker, but honestly I am not sure how they work and after around 20 hours of trial and error with other answers, I decided to ask a question myself.
Here a very simple structure of my program:
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public MainWindow()
{
Initialize Component();
}
private void startCalc(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
inputValues input = new inputValues();
calcClass calculations = new calcClass();
try
{
input.pota = Convert.ToDouble(aVar.Text);
input.potb = Convert.ToDouble(bVar.Text);
input.potc = Convert.ToDouble(cVar.Text);
input.potd = Convert.ToDouble(dVar.Text);
input.potf = Convert.ToDouble(fVar.Text);
input.potA = Convert.ToDouble(AVar.Text);
input.potB = Convert.ToDouble(BVar.Text);
input.initStart = Convert.ToDouble(initStart.Text);
input.initEnd = Convert.ToDouble(initEnd.Text);
input.inita = Convert.ToDouble(inita.Text);
input.initb = Convert.ToDouble(initb.Text);
input.initc = Convert.ToDouble(initb.Text);
}
catch
{
MessageBox.Show("Some input values are not of the expected Type.", "Wrong Input", MessageBoxButton.OK, MessageBoxImage.Error);
}
Thread calcthread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(calculations.testMethod);
calcthread.Start(input);
}
public class inputValues
{
public double pota, potb, potc, potd, potf, potA, potB;
public double initStart, initEnd, inita, initb, initc;
}
public class calcClass
{
public void testmethod(inputValues input)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
int i;
//the input object will be used somehow, but that doesn't matter for my problem
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
}
}
I would be very grateful if someone had a simple explanation how to update the UI from inside the testmethod. Since I am new to C# and object oriented programming, too complicated answers I will very likely not understand, I'll do my best though.
Also if someone has a better idea in general (maybe using backgroundworker or anything else) I am open to see it.

First you need to use Dispatcher.Invoke to change the UI from another thread and to do that from another class, you can use events.
Then you can register to that event(s) in the main class and Dispatch the changes to the UI and in the calculation class you throw the event when you want to notify the UI:
class MainWindow : Window
{
private void startCalc()
{
//your code
CalcClass calc = new CalcClass();
calc.ProgressUpdate += (s, e) => {
Dispatcher.Invoke((Action)delegate() { /* update UI */ });
};
Thread calcthread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(calc.testMethod));
calcthread.Start(input);
}
}
class CalcClass
{
public event EventHandler ProgressUpdate;
public void testMethod(object input)
{
//part 1
if(ProgressUpdate != null)
ProgressUpdate(this, new YourEventArgs(status));
//part 2
}
}
UPDATE:
As it seems this is still an often visited question and answer I want to update this answer with how I would do it now (with .NET 4.5) - this is a little longer as I will show some different possibilities:
class MainWindow : Window
{
Task calcTask = null;
void buttonStartCalc_Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e) { StartCalc(); } // #1
async void buttonDoCalc_Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e) // #2
{
await CalcAsync(); // #2
}
void StartCalc()
{
var calc = PrepareCalc();
calcTask = Task.Run(() => calc.TestMethod(input)); // #3
}
Task CalcAsync()
{
var calc = PrepareCalc();
return Task.Run(() => calc.TestMethod(input)); // #4
}
CalcClass PrepareCalc()
{
//your code
var calc = new CalcClass();
calc.ProgressUpdate += (s, e) => Dispatcher.Invoke((Action)delegate()
{
// update UI
});
return calc;
}
}
class CalcClass
{
public event EventHandler<EventArgs<YourStatus>> ProgressUpdate; // #5
public TestMethod(InputValues input)
{
//part 1
ProgressUpdate.Raise(this, status); // #6 - status is of type YourStatus
// alternative version to the extension for C# 6+:
ProgressUpdate?.Invoke(this, new EventArgs<YourStatus>(status));
//part 2
}
}
static class EventExtensions
{
public static void Raise<T>(this EventHandler<EventArgs<T>> theEvent,
object sender, T args)
{
if (theEvent != null)
theEvent(sender, new EventArgs<T>(args));
}
}
#1) How to start the "synchronous" calculations and run them in the background
#2) How to start it "asynchronous" and "await it": Here the calculation is executed and completed before the method returns, but because of the async/await the UI is not blocked (BTW: such event handlers are the only valid usages of async void as the event handler must return void - use async Task in all other cases)
#3) Instead of a new Thread we now use a Task. To later be able to check its (successfull) completion we save it in the global calcTask member. In the background this also starts a new thread and runs the action there, but it is much easier to handle and has some other benefits.
#4) Here we also start the action, but this time we return the task, so the "async event handler" can "await it". We could also create async Task CalcAsync() and then await Task.Run(() => calc.TestMethod(input)).ConfigureAwait(false); (FYI: the ConfigureAwait(false) is to avoid deadlocks, you should read up on this if you use async/await as it would be to much to explain here) which would result in the same workflow, but as the Task.Run is the only "awaitable operation" and is the last one we can simply return the task and save one context switch, which saves some execution time.
#5) Here I now use a "strongly typed generic event" so we can pass and receive our "status object" easily
#6) Here I use the extension defined below, which (aside from ease of use) solve the possible race condition in the old example. There it could have happened that the event got null after the if-check, but before the call if the event handler was removed in another thread at just that moment. This can't happen here, as the extensions gets a "copy" of the event delegate and in the same situation the handler is still registered inside the Raise method.

I am going to throw you a curve ball here. If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times. Marshaling operations like Invoke or BeginInvoke are not always the best methods for updating the UI with worker thread progress.
In this case it usually works better to have the worker thread publish its progress information to a shared data structure that the UI thread then polls at regular intervals. This has several advantages.
It breaks the tight coupling between the UI and worker thread that Invoke imposes.
The UI thread gets to dictate when the UI controls get updated...the way it should be anyway when you really think about it.
There is no risk of overrunning the UI message queue as would be the case if BeginInvoke were used from the worker thread.
The worker thread does not have to wait for a response from the UI thread as would be the case with Invoke.
You get more throughput on both the UI and worker threads.
Invoke and BeginInvoke are expensive operations.
So in your calcClass create a data structure that will hold the progress information.
public class calcClass
{
private double percentComplete = 0;
public double PercentComplete
{
get
{
// Do a thread-safe read here.
return Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref percentComplete, 0, 0);
}
}
public testMethod(object input)
{
int count = 1000;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
double newvalue = ((double)i + 1) / (double)count;
Interlocked.Exchange(ref percentComplete, newvalue);
}
}
}
Then in your MainWindow class use a DispatcherTimer to periodically poll the progress information. Configure the DispatcherTimer to raise the Tick event on whatever interval is most appropriate for your situation.
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public void YourDispatcherTimer_Tick(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
YourProgressBar.Value = calculation.PercentComplete;
}
}

You're right that you should use the Dispatcher to update controls on the UI thread, and also right that long-running processes should not run on the UI thread. Even if you run the long-running process asynchronously on the UI thread, it can still cause performance issues.
It should be noted that Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher will return the dispatcher for the current thread, not necessarily the UI thread. I think you can use Application.Current.Dispatcher to get a reference to the UI thread's dispatcher if that's available to you, but if not you'll have to pass the UI dispatcher in to your background thread.
Typically I use the Task Parallel Library for threading operations instead of a BackgroundWorker. I just find it easier to use.
For example,
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
SomeObject.RunLongProcess(someDataObject));
where
void RunLongProcess(SomeViewModel someDataObject)
{
for (int i = 0; i <= 1000; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
// Update every 10 executions
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
// Send message to UI thread
Application.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(
DispatcherPriority.Normal,
(Action)(() => someDataObject.ProgressValue = (i / 1000)));
}
}
}

Everything that interacts with the UI must be called in the UI thread (unless it is a frozen object). To do that, you can use the dispatcher.
var disp = /* Get the UI dispatcher, each WPF object has a dispatcher which you can query*/
disp.BeginInvoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal,
(Action)(() => /*Do your UI Stuff here*/));
I use BeginInvoke here, usually a backgroundworker doesn't need to wait that the UI updates. If you want to wait, you can use Invoke. But you should be careful not to call BeginInvoke to fast to often, this can get really nasty.
By the way, The BackgroundWorker class helps with this kind of taks. It allows Reporting changes, like a percentage and dispatches this automatically from the Background thread into the ui thread. For the most thread <> update ui tasks the BackgroundWorker is a great tool.

If this is a long calculation then I would go background worker. It has progress support. It also has support for cancel.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=VS.95).aspx
Here I have a TextBox bound to contents.
private void backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
Debug.Write("backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted");
if (e.Cancelled)
{
contents = "Cancelled get contents.";
NotifyPropertyChanged("Contents");
}
else if (e.Error != null)
{
contents = "An Error Occured in get contents";
NotifyPropertyChanged("Contents");
}
else
{
contents = (string)e.Result;
if (contentTabSelectd) NotifyPropertyChanged("Contents");
}
}

You are going to have to come back to your main thread (also called UI thread) in order to update the UI.
Any other thread trying to update your UI will just cause exceptions to be thrown all over the place.
So because you are in WPF, you can use the Dispatcher and more specifically a beginInvoke on this dispatcher. This will allow you to execute what needs done (typically Update the UI) in the UI thread.
You migh also want to "register" the UI in your business, by maintaining a reference to a control/form, so you can use its dispatcher.

Thank God, Microsoft got that figured out in WPF :)
Every Control, like a progress bar, button, form, etc. has a Dispatcher on it. You can give the Dispatcher an Action that needs to be performed, and it will automatically call it on the correct thread (an Action is like a function delegate).
You can find an example here.
Of course, you'll have to have the control accessible from other classes, e.g. by making it public and handing a reference to the Window to your other class, or maybe by passing a reference only to the progress bar.

Felt the need to add this better answer, as nothing except BackgroundWorker seemed to help me, and the answer dealing with that thus far was woefully incomplete. This is how you would update a XAML page called MainWindow that has an Image tag like this:
<Image Name="imgNtwkInd" Source="Images/network_on.jpg" Width="50" />
with a BackgroundWorker process to show if you are connected to the network or not:
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Windows;
using System.Windows.Controls;
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
private BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker();
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
// Set up background worker to allow progress reporting and cancellation
bw.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
bw.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
// This is your main work process that records progress
bw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(SomeClass.DoWork);
// This will update your page based on that progress
bw.ProgressChanged += new ProgressChangedEventHandler(bw_ProgressChanged);
// This starts your background worker and "DoWork()"
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
// When this page closes, this will run and cancel your background worker
this.Closing += new CancelEventHandler(Page_Unload);
}
private void bw_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
BitmapImage bImg = new BitmapImage();
bool connected = false;
string response = e.ProgressPercentage.ToString(); // will either be 1 or 0 for true/false -- this is the result recorded in DoWork()
if (response == "1")
connected = true;
// Do something with the result we got
if (!connected)
{
bImg.BeginInit();
bImg.UriSource = new Uri("Images/network_off.jpg", UriKind.Relative);
bImg.EndInit();
imgNtwkInd.Source = bImg;
}
else
{
bImg.BeginInit();
bImg.UriSource = new Uri("Images/network_on.jpg", UriKind.Relative);
bImg.EndInit();
imgNtwkInd.Source = bImg;
}
}
private void Page_Unload(object sender, CancelEventArgs e)
{
bw.CancelAsync(); // stops the background worker when unloading the page
}
}
public class SomeClass
{
public static bool connected = false;
public void DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker bw = sender as BackgroundWorker;
int i = 0;
do
{
connected = CheckConn(); // do some task and get the result
if (bw.CancellationPending == true)
{
e.Cancel = true;
break;
}
else
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
// Record your result here
if (connected)
bw.ReportProgress(1);
else
bw.ReportProgress(0);
}
}
while (i == 0);
}
private static bool CheckConn()
{
bool conn = false;
Ping png = new Ping();
string host = "SomeComputerNameHere";
try
{
PingReply pngReply = png.Send(host);
if (pngReply.Status == IPStatus.Success)
conn = true;
}
catch (PingException ex)
{
// write exception to log
}
return conn;
}
}
For more information: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=VS.95).aspx