Related
I have the two APIs, which call the same services.
This version performs in the time that the at most expensive task takes.
public async Task<double> Do()
{
var sw = System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.StartNew();
var t1 = _service.Do1();
var t2 = _service.Do2();
await t1;
await t2;
return sw.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds;
}
While this one performs in sum of each task delay.
public async Task<double> Do()
{
var sw = System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.StartNew();
await _service.Do1();
await _service.Do2();
return sw.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds;
}
internal async Task Do1() => await Task.Delay(5000);
internal async Task Do2() => await Task.Delay(2000);
Why is that, what is actually happening ?
Tasks return "hot", or already started. The await keyword quite literally means hold here and wait for the task to complete. As such, when you await each operation individually, it's calling Do1, waiting for that to finish, and then calling Do2 and waiting for that to finish.
However, when you just store them in variables, it calls Do1, and then it calls Do2, while Do1 is still running. Later when you await these two variables, the code will hold waiting for each to actually complete on by one, but they're already both running.
Long and short, it's the difference between running serially and in parallel. Asynchronous operations can be run parallel, but they are not parallel by nature: it's two different concepts.
var t1 = _service.Do1(); < --- your 1st task started
var t2 = _service.Do2(); < --- your 2nd task started
await t1; < --- 1st awaited but it already did at least part of its job so far
await t2; < --- 2nd task awaited but, if its light task, probably already done so nothing to await
vs
await _service.Do1(); < --- 1st task started and blocks 2nd from starting
await _service.Do2(); < --- 2nd starts only after 1st finished
Obviously, case 1 runs in parallel for some time while second one runs in series thus takes full time of both tasks summed.
In the first case both tasks will be started before you await one of them. So you need only the time max(time(task1), time(task2)).
In the second case you start the first task wait for it to finish and then start the second one, so your time will be time(task1) + time(task2)
Edit:
Also be aware of CPU-bound Tasks as Tasks will not automatically run parallel if executed on the same thread, e.g.
public static async Task<double> Do()
{
var sw = System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.StartNew();
var t1 = Do1();
var t2 = Do2();
await t1;
await t2;
var time = sw.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds;
Console.WriteLine("time="+time); // time=3002.3204
return time;
}
public static async Task Do1()
{
var t = Task.Delay(1000);
while(t.Status != TaskStatus.RanToCompletion) {}
await t;
}
public static async Task Do2()
{
var t = Task.Delay(2000);
while(t.Status != TaskStatus.RanToCompletion) {}
await t;
}
Try it online!
I want to wait for a Task<T> to complete with some special rules:
If it hasn't completed after X milliseconds, I want to display a message to the user.
And if it hasn't completed after Y milliseconds, I want to automatically request cancellation.
I can use Task.ContinueWith to asynchronously wait for the task to complete (i.e. schedule an action to be executed when the task is complete), but that doesn't allow to specify a timeout.
I can use Task.Wait to synchronously wait for the task to complete with a timeout, but that blocks my thread.
How can I asynchronously wait for the task to complete with a timeout?
How about this:
int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) == task) {
// task completed within timeout
} else {
// timeout logic
}
And here's a great blog post "Crafting a Task.TimeoutAfter Method" (from MS Parallel Library team) with more info on this sort of thing.
Addition: at the request of a comment on my answer, here is an expanded solution that includes cancellation handling. Note that passing cancellation to the task and the timer means that there are multiple ways cancellation can be experienced in your code, and you should be sure to test for and be confident you properly handle all of them. Don't leave to chance various combinations and hope your computer does the right thing at runtime.
int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync(cancellationToken);
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, cancellationToken)) == task)
{
// Task completed within timeout.
// Consider that the task may have faulted or been canceled.
// We re-await the task so that any exceptions/cancellation is rethrown.
await task;
}
else
{
// timeout/cancellation logic
}
Here's a extension method version that incorporates cancellation of the timeout when the original task completes as suggested by Andrew Arnott in a comment to his answer.
public static async Task<TResult> TimeoutAfter<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout) {
using (var timeoutCancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource()) {
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Token));
if (completedTask == task) {
timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
return await task; // Very important in order to propagate exceptions
} else {
throw new TimeoutException("The operation has timed out.");
}
}
}
From .Net 6 (Preview 7) or later, there is a new build-in method Task.WaitAsync to achieve this.
// Using TimeSpan
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
// Using CancellationToken
await myTask.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
// Using both TimeSpan and CancellationToken
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken);
If the task isn't finished before the TimeSpan or CancellationToken then it throws TimeoutException or TaskCanceledException respectively
try
{
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task didn't get finished before the `CancellationToken`");
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task didn't get finished before the `TimeSpan`");
}
You can use Task.WaitAny to wait the first of multiple tasks.
You could create two additional tasks (that complete after the specified timeouts) and then use WaitAny to wait for whichever completes first. If the task that completed first is your "work" task, then you're done. If the task that completed first is a timeout task, then you can react to the timeout (e.g. request cancellation).
This is a slightly enhanced version of previous answers.
In addition to Lawrence's answer, it cancels the original task when timeout occurs.
In addtion to sjb's answer variants 2 and 3, you can provide CancellationToken for the original task, and when timeout occurs, you get TimeoutException instead of OperationCanceledException.
async Task<TResult> CancelAfterAsync<TResult>(
Func<CancellationToken, Task<TResult>> startTask,
TimeSpan timeout, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
using (var timeoutCancellation = new CancellationTokenSource())
using (var combinedCancellation = CancellationTokenSource
.CreateLinkedTokenSource(cancellationToken, timeoutCancellation.Token))
{
var originalTask = startTask(combinedCancellation.Token);
var delayTask = Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellation.Token);
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(originalTask, delayTask);
// Cancel timeout to stop either task:
// - Either the original task completed, so we need to cancel the delay task.
// - Or the timeout expired, so we need to cancel the original task.
// Canceling will not affect a task, that is already completed.
timeoutCancellation.Cancel();
if (completedTask == originalTask)
{
// original task completed
return await originalTask;
}
else
{
// timeout
throw new TimeoutException();
}
}
}
Usage
InnerCallAsync may take a long time to complete. CallAsync wraps it with a timeout.
async Task<int> CallAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1);
int result = await CancelAfterAsync(ct => InnerCallAsync(ct), timeout,
cancellationToken);
return result;
}
async Task<int> InnerCallAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
return 42;
}
Using Stephen Cleary's excellent AsyncEx library, you can do:
TimeSpan timeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10);
using (var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(timeout))
{
await myTask.WaitAsync(cts.Token);
}
TaskCanceledException will be thrown in the event of a timeout.
Here is a fully worked example based on the top voted answer, which is:
int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) == task) {
// task completed within timeout
} else {
// timeout logic
}
The main advantage of the implementation in this answer is that generics have been added, so the function (or task) can return a value. This means that any existing function can be wrapped in a timeout function, e.g.:
Before:
int x = MyFunc();
After:
// Throws a TimeoutException if MyFunc takes more than 1 second
int x = TimeoutAfter(MyFunc, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
This code requires .NET 4.5.
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TaskTimeout
{
public static class Program
{
/// <summary>
/// Demo of how to wrap any function in a timeout.
/// </summary>
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Version without timeout.
int a = MyFunc();
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", a);
// Version with timeout.
int b = TimeoutAfter(() => { return MyFunc(); },TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", b);
// Version with timeout (short version that uses method groups).
int c = TimeoutAfter(MyFunc, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", c);
// Version that lets you see what happens when a timeout occurs.
try
{
int d = TimeoutAfter(
() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(123));
return 42;
},
TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", d);
}
catch (TimeoutException e)
{
Console.Write("Exception: {0}\n", e.Message);
}
// Version that works on tasks.
var task = Task.Run(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
return 42;
});
// To use async/await, add "await" and remove "GetAwaiter().GetResult()".
var result = task.TimeoutAfterAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2)).
GetAwaiter().GetResult();
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", result);
Console.Write("[any key to exit]");
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static int MyFunc()
{
return 42;
}
public static TResult TimeoutAfter<TResult>(
this Func<TResult> func, TimeSpan timeout)
{
var task = Task.Run(func);
return TimeoutAfterAsync(task, timeout).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
private static async Task<TResult> TimeoutAfterAsync<TResult>(
this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout)
{
var result = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout));
if (result == task)
{
// Task completed within timeout.
return task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
else
{
// Task timed out.
throw new TimeoutException();
}
}
}
}
Caveats
Having given this answer, its generally not a good practice to have exceptions thrown in your code during normal operation, unless you absolutely have to:
Each time an exception is thrown, its an extremely heavyweight operation,
Exceptions can slow your code down by a factor of 100 or more if the exceptions are in a tight loop.
Only use this code if you absolutely cannot alter the function you are calling so it times out after a specific TimeSpan.
This answer is really only applicable when dealing with 3rd party library libraries that you simply cannot refactor to include a timeout parameter.
How to write robust code
If you want to write robust code, the general rule is this:
Every single operation that could potentially block indefinitely, must have a timeout.
If you do not observe this rule, your code will eventually hit an operation that fails for some reason, then it will block indefinitely, and your app has just permanently hung.
If there was a reasonable timeout after some time, then your app would hang for some extreme amount of time (e.g. 30 seconds) then it would either display an error and continue on its merry way, or retry.
What about something like this?
const int x = 3000;
const int y = 1000;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Your scheduler
TaskScheduler scheduler = TaskScheduler.Default;
Task nonblockingTask = new Task(() =>
{
CancellationTokenSource source = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task t1 = new Task(() =>
{
while (true)
{
// Do something
if (source.IsCancellationRequested)
break;
}
}, source.Token);
t1.Start(scheduler);
// Wait for task 1
bool firstTimeout = t1.Wait(x);
if (!firstTimeout)
{
// If it hasn't finished at first timeout display message
Console.WriteLine("Message to user: the operation hasn't completed yet.");
bool secondTimeout = t1.Wait(y);
if (!secondTimeout)
{
source.Cancel();
Console.WriteLine("Operation stopped!");
}
}
});
nonblockingTask.Start();
Console.WriteLine("Do whatever you want...");
Console.ReadLine();
}
You can use the Task.Wait option without blocking main thread using another Task.
Use a Timer to handle the message and automatic cancellation. When the Task completes, call Dispose on the timers so that they will never fire. Here is an example; change taskDelay to 500, 1500, or 2500 to see the different cases:
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
private static Task CreateTaskWithTimeout(
int xDelay, int yDelay, int taskDelay)
{
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = cts.Token;
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
// Do some work, but fail if cancellation was requested
token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(taskDelay);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Console.WriteLine("Task complete");
});
var messageTimer = new Timer(state =>
{
// Display message at first timeout
Console.WriteLine("X milliseconds elapsed");
}, null, xDelay, -1);
var cancelTimer = new Timer(state =>
{
// Display message and cancel task at second timeout
Console.WriteLine("Y milliseconds elapsed");
cts.Cancel();
}
, null, yDelay, -1);
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// Dispose the timers when the task completes
// This will prevent the message from being displayed
// if the task completes before the timeout
messageTimer.Dispose();
cancelTimer.Dispose();
});
return task;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var task = CreateTaskWithTimeout(1000, 2000, 2500);
// The task has been started and will display a message after
// one timeout and then cancel itself after the second
// You can add continuations to the task
// or wait for the result as needed
try
{
task.Wait();
Console.WriteLine("Done waiting for task");
}
catch (AggregateException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Error waiting for task:");
foreach (var e in ex.InnerExceptions)
{
Console.WriteLine(e);
}
}
}
}
}
Also, the Async CTP provides a TaskEx.Delay method that will wrap the timers in tasks for you. This can give you more control to do things like set the TaskScheduler for the continuation when the Timer fires.
private static Task CreateTaskWithTimeout(
int xDelay, int yDelay, int taskDelay)
{
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = cts.Token;
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
// Do some work, but fail if cancellation was requested
token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(taskDelay);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Console.WriteLine("Task complete");
});
var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var messageTask = TaskEx.Delay(xDelay, timerCts.Token);
messageTask.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// Display message at first timeout
Console.WriteLine("X milliseconds elapsed");
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
var cancelTask = TaskEx.Delay(yDelay, timerCts.Token);
cancelTask.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// Display message and cancel task at second timeout
Console.WriteLine("Y milliseconds elapsed");
cts.Cancel();
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
timerCts.Cancel();
});
return task;
}
With .Net 6 (preview 7 as the date of this answer), it is possible to use the new WaitAsync(TimeSpan, CancellationToken) which answers to this particular need.
If you can use .Net6, this version is moreover described to be optimized if we compare to the majority of good solutions proposed in this posts.
(Thanks for all participants because I used your solution for years)
Another way of solving this problem is using Reactive Extensions:
public static Task TimeoutAfter(this Task task, TimeSpan timeout, IScheduler scheduler)
{
return task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}
Test up above using below code in your unit test, it works for me
TestScheduler scheduler = new TestScheduler();
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
{
int i = 0;
while (i < 5)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
i++;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
})
.TimeoutAfter(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5), scheduler)
.ContinueWith(t => { }, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
scheduler.AdvanceBy(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(6).Ticks);
You may need the following namespace:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Reactive.Subjects;
using System.Reactive.Linq;
using System.Reactive.Threading.Tasks;
using Microsoft.Reactive.Testing;
using System.Threading;
using System.Reactive.Concurrency;
A generic version of #Kevan's answer above, using Reactive Extensions.
public static Task<T> TimeoutAfter<T>(this Task<T> task, TimeSpan timeout, IScheduler scheduler)
{
return task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}
With optional Scheduler:
public static Task<T> TimeoutAfter<T>(this Task<T> task, TimeSpan timeout, Scheduler scheduler = null)
{
return scheduler is null
? task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout).ToTask()
: task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}
BTW: When a Timeout happens, a timeout exception will be thrown
For the fun of it I made a 'OnTimeout' extension to Task. On timeout Task executes the desired inline lambda Action() and returns true, otherwise false.
public static async Task<bool> OnTimeout<T>(this T t, Action<T> action, int waitms) where T : Task
{
if (!(await Task.WhenAny(t, Task.Delay(waitms)) == t))
{
action(t);
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
The OnTimeout extension returns a bool result that can be assigned to a variable like in this example calling an UDP socket Async:
var t = UdpSocket.ReceiveAsync();
var timeout = await t.OnTimeout(task => {
Console.WriteLine("No Response");
}, 5000);
The 'task' variable is accessible in the timeout lambda for more processing.
The use of Action receiving an object may inspire to various other extension designs.
Create a extension to wait for the task or a delay to complete, whichever comes first. Throw an exception if the delay wins.
public static async Task<TResult> WithTimeout<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout)
{
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) != task)
throw new TimeoutException();
return await task;
}
I felt the Task.Delay() task and CancellationTokenSource in the other answers a bit much for my use case in a tight-ish networking loop.
And although Joe Hoag's Crafting a Task.TimeoutAfter Method on MSDN blogs was inspiring, I was a little weary of using TimeoutException for flow control for the same reason as above, because timeouts are expected more frequently than not.
So I went with this, which also handles the optimizations mentioned in the blog:
public static async Task<bool> BeforeTimeout(this Task task, int millisecondsTimeout)
{
if (task.IsCompleted) return true;
if (millisecondsTimeout == 0) return false;
if (millisecondsTimeout == Timeout.Infinite)
{
await Task.WhenAll(task);
return true;
}
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
using (var timer = new Timer(state => ((TaskCompletionSource<object>)state).TrySetCanceled(), tcs,
millisecondsTimeout, Timeout.Infinite))
{
return await Task.WhenAny(task, tcs.Task) == task;
}
}
An example use case is as such:
var receivingTask = conn.ReceiveAsync(ct);
while (!await receivingTask.BeforeTimeout(keepAliveMilliseconds))
{
// Send keep-alive
}
// Read and do something with data
var data = await receivingTask;
A few variants of Andrew Arnott's answer:
If you want to wait for an existing task and find out whether it completed or timed out, but don't want to cancel it if the timeout occurs:
public static async Task<bool> TimedOutAsync(this Task task, int timeoutMilliseconds)
{
if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
if (timeoutMilliseconds == 0) {
return !task.IsCompleted; // timed out if not completed
}
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
if (await Task.WhenAny( task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, cts.Token)) == task) {
cts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
return false; // did not timeout
} else {
return true; // did timeout
}
}
If you want to start a work task and cancel the work if the timeout occurs:
public static async Task<T> CancelAfterAsync<T>( this Func<CancellationToken,Task<T>> actionAsync, int timeoutMilliseconds)
{
if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
var taskCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task<T> task = actionAsync(taskCts.Token);
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, timerCts.Token)) == task) {
timerCts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
} else {
taskCts.Cancel(); // timer completed, get rid of task
}
return await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
}
If you have a task already created that you want to cancel if a timeout occurs:
public static async Task<T> CancelAfterAsync<T>(this Task<T> task, int timeoutMilliseconds, CancellationTokenSource taskCts)
{
if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, timerCts.Token)) == task) {
timerCts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
} else {
taskCts.Cancel(); // timer completed, get rid of task
}
return await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
}
Another comment, these versions will cancel the timer if the timeout does not occur, so multiple calls will not cause timers to pile up.
sjb
So this is ancient, but there's a much better modern solution. Not sure what version of c#/.NET is required, but this is how I do it:
... Other method code not relevant to the question.
// a token source that will timeout at the specified interval, or if cancelled outside of this scope
using var timeoutTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
using var linkedTokenSource = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(token, timeoutTokenSource.Token);
async Task<MessageResource> FetchAsync()
{
try
{
return await MessageResource.FetchAsync(m.Sid);
} catch (TaskCanceledException e)
{
if (timeoutTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
throw new TimeoutException("Timeout", e);
throw;
}
}
return await Task.Run(FetchAsync, linkedTokenSource.Token);
the CancellationTokenSource constructor takes a TimeSpan parameter which will cause that token to cancel after that interval has elapsed. You can then wrap your async (or syncronous, for that matter) code in another call to Task.Run, passing the timeout token.
This assumes you're passing in a cancellation token (the token variable). If you don't have a need to cancel the task separately from the timeout, you can just use timeoutTokenSource directly. Otherwise, you create linkedTokenSource, which will cancel if the timeout ocurrs, or if it's otherwise cancelled.
We then just catch OperationCancelledException and check which token threw the exception, and throw a TimeoutException if a timeout caused this to raise. Otherwise, we rethrow.
Also, I'm using local functions here, which were introduced in C# 7, but you could easily use lambda or actual functions to the same affect. Similarly, c# 8 introduced a simpler syntax for using statements, but those are easy enough to rewrite.
If you use a BlockingCollection to schedule the task, the producer can run the potentially long running task and the consumer can use the TryTake method which has timeout and cancellation token built in.
I'm recombinging the ideas of some other answers here and this answer on another thread into a Try-style extension method. This has a benefit if you want an extension method, yet avoiding an exception upon timeout.
public static async Task<bool> TryWithTimeoutAfter<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task,
TimeSpan timeout, Action<TResult> successor)
{
using var timeoutCancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Token))
.ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
if (completedTask == task)
{
timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
// propagate exception rather than AggregateException, if calling task.Result.
var result = await task.ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
successor(result);
return true;
}
else return false;
}
async Task Example(Task<string> task)
{
string result = null;
if (await task.TryWithTimeoutAfter(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1), r => result = r))
{
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}
I want to wait for a Task<T> to complete with some special rules:
If it hasn't completed after X milliseconds, I want to display a message to the user.
And if it hasn't completed after Y milliseconds, I want to automatically request cancellation.
I can use Task.ContinueWith to asynchronously wait for the task to complete (i.e. schedule an action to be executed when the task is complete), but that doesn't allow to specify a timeout.
I can use Task.Wait to synchronously wait for the task to complete with a timeout, but that blocks my thread.
How can I asynchronously wait for the task to complete with a timeout?
How about this:
int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) == task) {
// task completed within timeout
} else {
// timeout logic
}
And here's a great blog post "Crafting a Task.TimeoutAfter Method" (from MS Parallel Library team) with more info on this sort of thing.
Addition: at the request of a comment on my answer, here is an expanded solution that includes cancellation handling. Note that passing cancellation to the task and the timer means that there are multiple ways cancellation can be experienced in your code, and you should be sure to test for and be confident you properly handle all of them. Don't leave to chance various combinations and hope your computer does the right thing at runtime.
int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync(cancellationToken);
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, cancellationToken)) == task)
{
// Task completed within timeout.
// Consider that the task may have faulted or been canceled.
// We re-await the task so that any exceptions/cancellation is rethrown.
await task;
}
else
{
// timeout/cancellation logic
}
Here's a extension method version that incorporates cancellation of the timeout when the original task completes as suggested by Andrew Arnott in a comment to his answer.
public static async Task<TResult> TimeoutAfter<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout) {
using (var timeoutCancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource()) {
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Token));
if (completedTask == task) {
timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
return await task; // Very important in order to propagate exceptions
} else {
throw new TimeoutException("The operation has timed out.");
}
}
}
From .Net 6 (Preview 7) or later, there is a new build-in method Task.WaitAsync to achieve this.
// Using TimeSpan
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
// Using CancellationToken
await myTask.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);
// Using both TimeSpan and CancellationToken
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken);
If the task isn't finished before the TimeSpan or CancellationToken then it throws TimeoutException or TaskCanceledException respectively
try
{
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task didn't get finished before the `CancellationToken`");
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task didn't get finished before the `TimeSpan`");
}
You can use Task.WaitAny to wait the first of multiple tasks.
You could create two additional tasks (that complete after the specified timeouts) and then use WaitAny to wait for whichever completes first. If the task that completed first is your "work" task, then you're done. If the task that completed first is a timeout task, then you can react to the timeout (e.g. request cancellation).
This is a slightly enhanced version of previous answers.
In addition to Lawrence's answer, it cancels the original task when timeout occurs.
In addtion to sjb's answer variants 2 and 3, you can provide CancellationToken for the original task, and when timeout occurs, you get TimeoutException instead of OperationCanceledException.
async Task<TResult> CancelAfterAsync<TResult>(
Func<CancellationToken, Task<TResult>> startTask,
TimeSpan timeout, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
using (var timeoutCancellation = new CancellationTokenSource())
using (var combinedCancellation = CancellationTokenSource
.CreateLinkedTokenSource(cancellationToken, timeoutCancellation.Token))
{
var originalTask = startTask(combinedCancellation.Token);
var delayTask = Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellation.Token);
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(originalTask, delayTask);
// Cancel timeout to stop either task:
// - Either the original task completed, so we need to cancel the delay task.
// - Or the timeout expired, so we need to cancel the original task.
// Canceling will not affect a task, that is already completed.
timeoutCancellation.Cancel();
if (completedTask == originalTask)
{
// original task completed
return await originalTask;
}
else
{
// timeout
throw new TimeoutException();
}
}
}
Usage
InnerCallAsync may take a long time to complete. CallAsync wraps it with a timeout.
async Task<int> CallAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1);
int result = await CancelAfterAsync(ct => InnerCallAsync(ct), timeout,
cancellationToken);
return result;
}
async Task<int> InnerCallAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
return 42;
}
Using Stephen Cleary's excellent AsyncEx library, you can do:
TimeSpan timeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10);
using (var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(timeout))
{
await myTask.WaitAsync(cts.Token);
}
TaskCanceledException will be thrown in the event of a timeout.
Here is a fully worked example based on the top voted answer, which is:
int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) == task) {
// task completed within timeout
} else {
// timeout logic
}
The main advantage of the implementation in this answer is that generics have been added, so the function (or task) can return a value. This means that any existing function can be wrapped in a timeout function, e.g.:
Before:
int x = MyFunc();
After:
// Throws a TimeoutException if MyFunc takes more than 1 second
int x = TimeoutAfter(MyFunc, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
This code requires .NET 4.5.
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TaskTimeout
{
public static class Program
{
/// <summary>
/// Demo of how to wrap any function in a timeout.
/// </summary>
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Version without timeout.
int a = MyFunc();
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", a);
// Version with timeout.
int b = TimeoutAfter(() => { return MyFunc(); },TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", b);
// Version with timeout (short version that uses method groups).
int c = TimeoutAfter(MyFunc, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", c);
// Version that lets you see what happens when a timeout occurs.
try
{
int d = TimeoutAfter(
() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(123));
return 42;
},
TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", d);
}
catch (TimeoutException e)
{
Console.Write("Exception: {0}\n", e.Message);
}
// Version that works on tasks.
var task = Task.Run(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
return 42;
});
// To use async/await, add "await" and remove "GetAwaiter().GetResult()".
var result = task.TimeoutAfterAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2)).
GetAwaiter().GetResult();
Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", result);
Console.Write("[any key to exit]");
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static int MyFunc()
{
return 42;
}
public static TResult TimeoutAfter<TResult>(
this Func<TResult> func, TimeSpan timeout)
{
var task = Task.Run(func);
return TimeoutAfterAsync(task, timeout).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
private static async Task<TResult> TimeoutAfterAsync<TResult>(
this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout)
{
var result = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout));
if (result == task)
{
// Task completed within timeout.
return task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
else
{
// Task timed out.
throw new TimeoutException();
}
}
}
}
Caveats
Having given this answer, its generally not a good practice to have exceptions thrown in your code during normal operation, unless you absolutely have to:
Each time an exception is thrown, its an extremely heavyweight operation,
Exceptions can slow your code down by a factor of 100 or more if the exceptions are in a tight loop.
Only use this code if you absolutely cannot alter the function you are calling so it times out after a specific TimeSpan.
This answer is really only applicable when dealing with 3rd party library libraries that you simply cannot refactor to include a timeout parameter.
How to write robust code
If you want to write robust code, the general rule is this:
Every single operation that could potentially block indefinitely, must have a timeout.
If you do not observe this rule, your code will eventually hit an operation that fails for some reason, then it will block indefinitely, and your app has just permanently hung.
If there was a reasonable timeout after some time, then your app would hang for some extreme amount of time (e.g. 30 seconds) then it would either display an error and continue on its merry way, or retry.
What about something like this?
const int x = 3000;
const int y = 1000;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Your scheduler
TaskScheduler scheduler = TaskScheduler.Default;
Task nonblockingTask = new Task(() =>
{
CancellationTokenSource source = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task t1 = new Task(() =>
{
while (true)
{
// Do something
if (source.IsCancellationRequested)
break;
}
}, source.Token);
t1.Start(scheduler);
// Wait for task 1
bool firstTimeout = t1.Wait(x);
if (!firstTimeout)
{
// If it hasn't finished at first timeout display message
Console.WriteLine("Message to user: the operation hasn't completed yet.");
bool secondTimeout = t1.Wait(y);
if (!secondTimeout)
{
source.Cancel();
Console.WriteLine("Operation stopped!");
}
}
});
nonblockingTask.Start();
Console.WriteLine("Do whatever you want...");
Console.ReadLine();
}
You can use the Task.Wait option without blocking main thread using another Task.
Use a Timer to handle the message and automatic cancellation. When the Task completes, call Dispose on the timers so that they will never fire. Here is an example; change taskDelay to 500, 1500, or 2500 to see the different cases:
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
private static Task CreateTaskWithTimeout(
int xDelay, int yDelay, int taskDelay)
{
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = cts.Token;
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
// Do some work, but fail if cancellation was requested
token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(taskDelay);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Console.WriteLine("Task complete");
});
var messageTimer = new Timer(state =>
{
// Display message at first timeout
Console.WriteLine("X milliseconds elapsed");
}, null, xDelay, -1);
var cancelTimer = new Timer(state =>
{
// Display message and cancel task at second timeout
Console.WriteLine("Y milliseconds elapsed");
cts.Cancel();
}
, null, yDelay, -1);
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// Dispose the timers when the task completes
// This will prevent the message from being displayed
// if the task completes before the timeout
messageTimer.Dispose();
cancelTimer.Dispose();
});
return task;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var task = CreateTaskWithTimeout(1000, 2000, 2500);
// The task has been started and will display a message after
// one timeout and then cancel itself after the second
// You can add continuations to the task
// or wait for the result as needed
try
{
task.Wait();
Console.WriteLine("Done waiting for task");
}
catch (AggregateException ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Error waiting for task:");
foreach (var e in ex.InnerExceptions)
{
Console.WriteLine(e);
}
}
}
}
}
Also, the Async CTP provides a TaskEx.Delay method that will wrap the timers in tasks for you. This can give you more control to do things like set the TaskScheduler for the continuation when the Timer fires.
private static Task CreateTaskWithTimeout(
int xDelay, int yDelay, int taskDelay)
{
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = cts.Token;
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
// Do some work, but fail if cancellation was requested
token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(taskDelay);
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Console.WriteLine("Task complete");
});
var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var messageTask = TaskEx.Delay(xDelay, timerCts.Token);
messageTask.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// Display message at first timeout
Console.WriteLine("X milliseconds elapsed");
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
var cancelTask = TaskEx.Delay(yDelay, timerCts.Token);
cancelTask.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// Display message and cancel task at second timeout
Console.WriteLine("Y milliseconds elapsed");
cts.Cancel();
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
timerCts.Cancel();
});
return task;
}
With .Net 6 (preview 7 as the date of this answer), it is possible to use the new WaitAsync(TimeSpan, CancellationToken) which answers to this particular need.
If you can use .Net6, this version is moreover described to be optimized if we compare to the majority of good solutions proposed in this posts.
(Thanks for all participants because I used your solution for years)
Another way of solving this problem is using Reactive Extensions:
public static Task TimeoutAfter(this Task task, TimeSpan timeout, IScheduler scheduler)
{
return task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}
Test up above using below code in your unit test, it works for me
TestScheduler scheduler = new TestScheduler();
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
{
int i = 0;
while (i < 5)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
i++;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
})
.TimeoutAfter(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5), scheduler)
.ContinueWith(t => { }, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
scheduler.AdvanceBy(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(6).Ticks);
You may need the following namespace:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Reactive.Subjects;
using System.Reactive.Linq;
using System.Reactive.Threading.Tasks;
using Microsoft.Reactive.Testing;
using System.Threading;
using System.Reactive.Concurrency;
A generic version of #Kevan's answer above, using Reactive Extensions.
public static Task<T> TimeoutAfter<T>(this Task<T> task, TimeSpan timeout, IScheduler scheduler)
{
return task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}
With optional Scheduler:
public static Task<T> TimeoutAfter<T>(this Task<T> task, TimeSpan timeout, Scheduler scheduler = null)
{
return scheduler is null
? task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout).ToTask()
: task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}
BTW: When a Timeout happens, a timeout exception will be thrown
For the fun of it I made a 'OnTimeout' extension to Task. On timeout Task executes the desired inline lambda Action() and returns true, otherwise false.
public static async Task<bool> OnTimeout<T>(this T t, Action<T> action, int waitms) where T : Task
{
if (!(await Task.WhenAny(t, Task.Delay(waitms)) == t))
{
action(t);
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
The OnTimeout extension returns a bool result that can be assigned to a variable like in this example calling an UDP socket Async:
var t = UdpSocket.ReceiveAsync();
var timeout = await t.OnTimeout(task => {
Console.WriteLine("No Response");
}, 5000);
The 'task' variable is accessible in the timeout lambda for more processing.
The use of Action receiving an object may inspire to various other extension designs.
Create a extension to wait for the task or a delay to complete, whichever comes first. Throw an exception if the delay wins.
public static async Task<TResult> WithTimeout<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout)
{
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) != task)
throw new TimeoutException();
return await task;
}
I felt the Task.Delay() task and CancellationTokenSource in the other answers a bit much for my use case in a tight-ish networking loop.
And although Joe Hoag's Crafting a Task.TimeoutAfter Method on MSDN blogs was inspiring, I was a little weary of using TimeoutException for flow control for the same reason as above, because timeouts are expected more frequently than not.
So I went with this, which also handles the optimizations mentioned in the blog:
public static async Task<bool> BeforeTimeout(this Task task, int millisecondsTimeout)
{
if (task.IsCompleted) return true;
if (millisecondsTimeout == 0) return false;
if (millisecondsTimeout == Timeout.Infinite)
{
await Task.WhenAll(task);
return true;
}
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
using (var timer = new Timer(state => ((TaskCompletionSource<object>)state).TrySetCanceled(), tcs,
millisecondsTimeout, Timeout.Infinite))
{
return await Task.WhenAny(task, tcs.Task) == task;
}
}
An example use case is as such:
var receivingTask = conn.ReceiveAsync(ct);
while (!await receivingTask.BeforeTimeout(keepAliveMilliseconds))
{
// Send keep-alive
}
// Read and do something with data
var data = await receivingTask;
A few variants of Andrew Arnott's answer:
If you want to wait for an existing task and find out whether it completed or timed out, but don't want to cancel it if the timeout occurs:
public static async Task<bool> TimedOutAsync(this Task task, int timeoutMilliseconds)
{
if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
if (timeoutMilliseconds == 0) {
return !task.IsCompleted; // timed out if not completed
}
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
if (await Task.WhenAny( task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, cts.Token)) == task) {
cts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
return false; // did not timeout
} else {
return true; // did timeout
}
}
If you want to start a work task and cancel the work if the timeout occurs:
public static async Task<T> CancelAfterAsync<T>( this Func<CancellationToken,Task<T>> actionAsync, int timeoutMilliseconds)
{
if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
var taskCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task<T> task = actionAsync(taskCts.Token);
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, timerCts.Token)) == task) {
timerCts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
} else {
taskCts.Cancel(); // timer completed, get rid of task
}
return await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
}
If you have a task already created that you want to cancel if a timeout occurs:
public static async Task<T> CancelAfterAsync<T>(this Task<T> task, int timeoutMilliseconds, CancellationTokenSource taskCts)
{
if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, timerCts.Token)) == task) {
timerCts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
} else {
taskCts.Cancel(); // timer completed, get rid of task
}
return await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
}
Another comment, these versions will cancel the timer if the timeout does not occur, so multiple calls will not cause timers to pile up.
sjb
So this is ancient, but there's a much better modern solution. Not sure what version of c#/.NET is required, but this is how I do it:
... Other method code not relevant to the question.
// a token source that will timeout at the specified interval, or if cancelled outside of this scope
using var timeoutTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
using var linkedTokenSource = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(token, timeoutTokenSource.Token);
async Task<MessageResource> FetchAsync()
{
try
{
return await MessageResource.FetchAsync(m.Sid);
} catch (TaskCanceledException e)
{
if (timeoutTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
throw new TimeoutException("Timeout", e);
throw;
}
}
return await Task.Run(FetchAsync, linkedTokenSource.Token);
the CancellationTokenSource constructor takes a TimeSpan parameter which will cause that token to cancel after that interval has elapsed. You can then wrap your async (or syncronous, for that matter) code in another call to Task.Run, passing the timeout token.
This assumes you're passing in a cancellation token (the token variable). If you don't have a need to cancel the task separately from the timeout, you can just use timeoutTokenSource directly. Otherwise, you create linkedTokenSource, which will cancel if the timeout ocurrs, or if it's otherwise cancelled.
We then just catch OperationCancelledException and check which token threw the exception, and throw a TimeoutException if a timeout caused this to raise. Otherwise, we rethrow.
Also, I'm using local functions here, which were introduced in C# 7, but you could easily use lambda or actual functions to the same affect. Similarly, c# 8 introduced a simpler syntax for using statements, but those are easy enough to rewrite.
If you use a BlockingCollection to schedule the task, the producer can run the potentially long running task and the consumer can use the TryTake method which has timeout and cancellation token built in.
I'm recombinging the ideas of some other answers here and this answer on another thread into a Try-style extension method. This has a benefit if you want an extension method, yet avoiding an exception upon timeout.
public static async Task<bool> TryWithTimeoutAfter<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task,
TimeSpan timeout, Action<TResult> successor)
{
using var timeoutCancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Token))
.ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
if (completedTask == task)
{
timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
// propagate exception rather than AggregateException, if calling task.Result.
var result = await task.ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
successor(result);
return true;
}
else return false;
}
async Task Example(Task<string> task)
{
string result = null;
if (await task.TryWithTimeoutAfter(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1), r => result = r))
{
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}
Good day! I am writing a helper library for WinForms UI. Started using TPL async/await mechanism and got a problem with this kind of code example :
private SynchronizationContext _context;
public void UpdateUI(Action action)
{
_context.Post(delegate { action(); }, null);
}
private async void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var taskAwait = 4000;
var progressRefresh = 200;
var cancellationSource = new System.Threading.CancellationTokenSource();
await Task.Run(() => { UpdateUI(() => { button2.Text = "Processing..."; }); });
Action usefulWork = () =>
{
try
{
Thread.Sleep(taskAwait);
cancellationSource.Cancel();
}
catch { }
};
Action progressUpdate = () =>
{
int i = 0;
while (i < 10)
{
UpdateUI(() => { button2.Text = "Processing " + i.ToString(); });
Thread.Sleep(progressRefresh);
i++;
}
cancellationSource.Cancel();
};
var usefulWorkTask = new Task(usefulWork, cancellationSource.Token);
var progressUpdateTask = new Task(progressUpdate, cancellationSource.Token);
try
{
cancellationSource.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Task tWork = Task.Factory.StartNew(usefulWork, cancellationSource.Token);
Task tProgress = Task.Factory.StartNew(progressUpdate, cancellationSource.Token);
await Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
var res = Task.WaitAny(new[] { tWork, tProgress }, cancellationSource.Token);
}
catch { }
}).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
await Task.Run(() => { UpdateUI(() => { button2.Text = "button2"; }); });
}
Basically, the idea is to run two parallel tasks - one is for, say, progress bar or whatever update and a sort of timeout controller, the other is the long running task itself. Whichever task finishes first cancels the other one. So, there should not be a problem to cancel the "progress" task as it has a loop in which I can check if task is marked cancelled. The problem is with the long running one. It could be Thread.Sleep() or SqlConnection.Open(). When I run CancellationSource.Cancel(), the long running task keeps working and does not cancel. After a timeout I am not interested in long running task or whatever it may result in.
As the cluttered code example may suggest, I have tried a bunch of variants and none given me a desired effect. Something like Task.WaitAny() freezes UI... Is there a way to make that cancellation work or may be even a different approach to code these things?
UPD:
public static class Taskhelpers
{
public static async Task<T> WithCancellation<T>(this Task<T> task, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
using (cancellationToken.Register(s => ((TaskCompletionSource<bool>)s).TrySetResult(true), tcs))
{
if (task != await Task.WhenAny(task, tcs.Task))
throw new OperationCanceledException(cancellationToken);
}
return await task;
}
public static async Task WithCancellation(this Task task, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
using (cancellationToken.Register(s => ((TaskCompletionSource<bool>)s).TrySetResult(true), tcs))
{
if (task != await Task.WhenAny(task, tcs.Task))
throw new OperationCanceledException(cancellationToken);
}
await task;
}
}
.....
var taskAwait = 4000;
var progressRefresh = 200;
var cancellationSource = new System.Threading.CancellationTokenSource();
var cancellationToken = cancellationSource.Token;
var usefulWorkTask = Task.Run(async () =>
{
try
{
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine("WORK : started");
await Task.Delay(taskAwait).WithCancellation(cancellationToken);
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine("WORK : finished");
}
catch (OperationCanceledException) { } // just drop out if got cancelled
catch (Exception ex)
{
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine("WORK : unexpected error : " + ex.Message);
}
}, cancellationToken);
var progressUpdatetask = Task.Run(async () =>
{
for (var i = 0; i < 25; i++)
{
if (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine("==== : " + i.ToString());
await Task.Delay(progressRefresh);
}
}
},cancellationToken);
await Task.WhenAny(usefulWorkTask, progressUpdatetask);
cancellationSource.Cancel();
By modifying for (var i = 0; i < 25; i++) limit of i I imitate whether long running task finishes before the progress task or otherwise. Works as desired. The WithCancellation helper method does the job, although two sort of 'nested' Task.WhenAny look suspicious for now.
I agree with all the points in Paulo's answer - namely, use modern solutions (Task.Run instead of Task.Factory.StartNew, Progress<T> for progress updates instead of manually posting to the SynchronizationContext, Task.WhenAny instead of Task.WaitAny for asynchronous code).
But to answer the actual question:
When I run CancellationSource.Cancel(), the long running task keeps working and does not cancel. After a timeout I am not interested in long running task or whatever it may result in.
There are two parts to this:
How do I write code that responds to a cancellation request?
How do I write code that ignores any responses after the cancellation?
Note that the first part deals with cancelling the operation, and the second part is actually dealing with cancelling the waiting for the operation to complete.
First things first: support cancellation in the operation itself. For CPU-bound code (i.e., running a loop), periodically call token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(). For I/O-bound code, the best option is to pass the token down to the next API layer - most (but not all) I/O APIs can (should) take cancellation tokens. If this isn't an option, then you can either choose to ignore the cancellation, or you can register a cancellation callback with token.Register. Sometimes there's a separate cancellation method you can call from your Register callback, and sometimes you can make it work by disposing the object from the callback (this approach often works because of a long-standing Win32 API tradition of cancelling all I/O for a handle when that handle is closed). I'm not sure if this will work for SqlConnection.Open, though.
Next, cancelling the wait. This one is relatively simple if you just want to cancel the wait due to a timeout:
await Task.WhenAny(tWork, tProgress, Task.Delay(5000));
When you write something like await Task.Run(() => { UpdateUI(() => { button2.Text = "Processing..."; }); }); on your button2_Click, you are, from the UI thread, scheduling an action to a thread poll thread that posts an action to the UI thread. If you called the action directly, it would be quickier because it wouldn't have two context switchings.
ConfigureAwait(false) causes the synchronization context to not being captured. I should not be used inside UI methods because, you most certainely, want to do some UI work on the continuation.
You shouldn't use Task.Factory.StartNew instead of Task.Run unless you absolutely have a reason to. See this and this.
For progress updates, consider using the Progress<T> class, because it captures the synchronization context.
Maybe you should try something like this:
private async void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var taskAwait = 4000;
var cancellationSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var cancellationToken = cancellationSource.Token;
button2.Text = "Processing...";
var usefullWorkTask = Task.Run(async () =>
{
try
{
await Task.Dealy(taskAwait);
}
catch { }
},
cancellationToken);
var progress = new Progress<imt>(i => {
button2.Text = "Processing " + i.ToString();
});
var progressUpdateTask = Task.Run(async () =>
{
for(var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
progress.Report(i);
}
},
cancellationToken);
await Task.WhenAny(usefullWorkTask, progressUpdateTask);
cancellationSource.Cancel();
}
I think you need to check IsCancellationRequested in the progressUpdate Action.
As to how to do what you want, this blog discusses an Extension method WithCancellation that will make it so that you stop waiting for your long running task.
I'm trying to force load an async datasource but wait for it synchronously so it works with legacy code (Using .net4.0).
If I create several Tasks, in excess of 1000 with a TaskCompletionSource and comment out the ContinueWhenAll, eventually each task completes as expected asynchronously. However when I introduce ContinueWhenAll I'm only ever able to set the TaskCompletionSource on one task.
Is it possible to make the following wait until all TaskCompletionSource are set and then escape from the LoadAllRows method?
Any help would be appreciated,
Cheers
public void LoadAllRows()
{
var allLoaded = false;
var tasks = new List<Task<bool>>();
for (var i = 0; i <= mDataRowCount; i++)
tasks.Add(EnsureRowLoaded(mDataController, i));
Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll(tasks.ToArray(), (antecendents) =>
{
//Check all loaded here
}).Wait();
if (!allLoaded)
{
//Throw some exception
}
}
private Task<bool> EnsureRowLoaded(AsyncServerModeDataController dataController, int rowHandle)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
//Async method with callback setting the tcs result
dataController.EnsureRowLoaded(rowHandle, o => tcs.SetResult(true));
return tcs.Task;
}