We Keep Coding

Continuous async pinger class: InvalidOperation on Progress (List modified during enumeration)

I'm trying to write a class that continuosly ping "in background" a list of one or more devices, and report the results to a Progress object in the GUI main class. Im very new with async/await and Tasks, but my code seems to work fine on my pc, even if i know its not so good designed. But when i start the application in a different computer it throws an InvalidOperationException from the Progress object because the Dictionary in is changed. I think it happens when i assign a new PingService to the same variable.
The PingService class starts pinging (SendPingAsync) a list of IP's on a function with a inf. loop that updates the PingServiceReply object for each iteration of the list and then "reporting" it to the Progress object.
What is the way for get it done, and what im doing wrong?
Here's the code.
PingSeviceReply class
public class PingServiceReply
{
private Dictionary<string, bool> ipDictionary;
internal PingServiceReply()
{
ipDictionary = new Dictionary<string, bool>();
}
public void SetIpStatus(string ip, bool status)
{
if (ipDictionary.ContainsKey(ip))
{
ipDictionary[ip] = status;
}
else
{
ipDictionary.Add(ip, status);
}
}
public Dictionary<string, bool> GetStatusDictionary()
{
return ipDictionary;
}
public bool AreAllOnline()
{
foreach (bool value in ipDictionary.Values)
{
if (!value)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}
PingService class
public class PingService
{
private string name;
private List<string> ipList;
private IProgress<PingServiceReply> progress;
private CancellationTokenSource cts;
private int timeout;
private Task tsk;
public PingService(string name, List<string> ipList, int timeoutInMillliseconds, IProgress<PingServiceReply> progress)
{
this.name = name;
this.ipList = ipList;
this.progress = progress;
this.timeout = timeoutInMillliseconds;
}
public PingService(string name, string ip, int timeoutInMillliseconds, IProgress<PingServiceReply> progress)
{
this.name = name;
this.ipList = new List<string>();
ipList.Add(ip);
this.progress = progress;
this.timeout = timeoutInMillliseconds;
}
public PingService()
{
cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
}
private async Task ContinuousPingAsync()
{
var ping = new System.Net.NetworkInformation.Ping();
PingReply singleResponse;
PingServiceReply ruleResponse = new PingServiceReply();
while (!cts.Token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
foreach (string ip in ipList)
{
singleResponse = await ping.SendPingAsync(ip, timeout).ConfigureAwait(false);
ruleResponse.SetIpStatus(ip, singleResponse.Status == IPStatus.Success);
}
progress.Report(ruleResponse);
}
}
public void StartService()
{
cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
tsk = ContinuousPingAsync();
}
public void StopService()
{
cts.Cancel();
}
public string GetName()
{
return name;
}
}
The progress object
IProgress<PingServiceReply> pingProgress = new Progress<PingServiceReply>(HandleSinglePing);
private void HandleSinglePing(PingServiceReply report)
{
if (report.AreAllOnline())
{
//online
}
else
{
//offline
}
}
How i use all in the gui class, on the combobox selectedItemChanged event
comboService.StopService();
comboService = new PingService("Combo", (string) comboBox.SelectedItem, 1000, pingProgress);
comboService.StartService();

Making asynchronous API synchronous

I am connecting to an API to get some data that is defined like this:
A client object ClientConnection, which allows one to send requests.
A IApi interface that needs to be passed to the ClientConnection to receive callbacks.
Schematically it looks like this:
// defined in the API dll
public class ClientConnection {
public ClientConnection(IApi api) { ... }
public void request(int reqid, string reqdetails) { ... }
}
interface IApi
{
void receiveData(int reqid, string ans);
}
Now, obviously this is a fairly standard asynchronous way of doing things: send requests through a global object, with a requestid, and receive answers tagged with that requestid.
I want to create a wrapper that is synchronous. What would be the most natural way of doing this? Is there a smart way of using async await, instead of using thread locking and stuff?
class MyWrapper : IApi
{
private ClientConnection _client;
private int _reqToken = 0;
public MyWrapper()
{
_client = new ClientConnection(this);
}
public string getData(string reqdetails)
{
_client.request(_reqToken++, reqdetails);
// what to do here?
}
public void receiveData(int reqid, string data) {
// what to do here?
}
}

Didn't test the code below, but it should give you the idea. Basically you can use ManualResetEvent to be signalled when you receive your result (and don't ever call this without proper timeout):
class MyWrapper : IApi {
private ClientConnection _client;
// here you store your requests
private Dictionary<int, PendingRequest> _pendingRequests = new Dictionary<int, PendingRequest>();
private int _reqToken = 0;
public MyWrapper() {
_client = new ClientConnection(this);
}
public string getData(string reqdetails, TimeSpan timout) {
// if this is multithreaded - lock over _pendingRequests when you add\remove requests there
// and when you increment your _reqToken, or use concurrent collection
using (var token = new PendingRequest()) {
var id = _reqToken;
// lock here
_pendingRequests.Add(id, token);
_client.request(id, reqdetails);
// and here use Interlocked.Increment
_reqToken++;
if (!token.Signal.WaitOne(timout)) {
// and here
_pendingRequests.Remove(id);
// timeout
throw new Exception("timout");
}
// if we are here - we have the result
return token.Result;
}
}
public void receiveData(int reqid, string data) {
// here you might need to lock too
if (_pendingRequests.ContainsKey(reqid)) {
var token = _pendingRequests[reqid];
_pendingRequests.Remove(reqid);
token.Complete(data);
}
}
private class PendingRequest : IDisposable {
public PendingRequest() {
Signal = new ManualResetEvent(false);
}
public ManualResetEvent Signal { get; private set; }
public string Result { get; private set; }
public void Complete(string result) {
this.Result = result;
Signal.Set();
}
public void Dispose() {
Signal.Dispose();
}
}
}

How to buffer a burst of events into fewer resulting actions

I want to reduce multiple events into a single delayed action. After some trigger occurs I expect some more similar triggers to come, but I prefer not to repeat the resulting delayed action. The action waits, to give a chance of completion to the burst.
The question: How can I do it in an elegant reusable way?
Till now I used a property to flag the event and trigger a delayed action like below:
public void SomeMethod()
{
SomeFlag = true; //this will intentionally return to the caller before completing the resulting buffered actions.
}
private bool someFlag;
public bool SomeFlag
{
get { return someFlag; }
set
{
if (someFlag != value)
{
someFlag = value;
if (value)
SomeDelayedMethod(5000);
}
}
}
public async void SomeDelayedMethod(int delay)
{
//some bufferred work.
await Task.Delay(delay);
SomeFlag = false;
}
below is a shorter way, but still not generic or reusable... I want something concise that packages the actions and the flag, and keeps the functionality (returning to the caller before execution is complete (like today)). I also need to be able to pass an object reference to this action)
public void SerializeAccountsToConfig()
{
if (!alreadyFlagged)
{
alreadyFlagged = true;
SerializeDelayed(5000, Serialize);
}
}
public async void SerializeDelayed(int delay, Action whatToDo)
{
await Task.Delay(delay);
whatToDo();
}
private bool alreadyFlagged;
private void Serialize()
{
//some buferred work.
//string json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(Accounts, Formatting.Indented);
//Settings1.Default.Accounts = json;
//Settings1.Default.Save();
alreadyFlagged = false;
}

Here's a thread-safe and reusable solution.
You can create an instance of DelayedSingleAction, and in the constructor you pass the action that you want to have performed. I believe this is thread safe, though there is a tiny risk that it will restart the timer just before commencing the action, but I think that risk would exist no matter what the solution is.
public class DelayedSingleAction
{
private readonly Action _action;
private readonly long _millisecondsDelay;
private long _syncValue = 1;
public DelayedSingleAction(Action action, long millisecondsDelay)
{
_action = action;
_millisecondsDelay = millisecondsDelay;
}
private Task _waitingTask = null;
private void DoActionAndClearTask(Task _)
{
Interlocked.Exchange(ref _syncValue, 1);
_action();
}
public void PerformAction()
{
if (Interlocked.Exchange(ref _syncValue, 0) == 1)
{
_waitingTask = Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(_millisecondsDelay))
.ContinueWith(DoActionAndClearTask);
}
}
public Task Complete()
{
return _waitingTask ?? Task.FromResult(0);
}
}
See this dotnetfiddle for an example which invokes one action continuously from multiple threads.
https://dotnetfiddle.net/el14wZ

Since you're interested in RX here simple console app sample:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// event source
var burstEvents = Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(50));
var subscription = burstEvents
.Buffer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(3)) // collect events 3 seconds
//.Buffer(50) // or collect 50 events
.Subscribe(events =>
{
//Console.WriteLine(events.First()); // take only first event
// or process event collection
foreach (var e in events)
Console.Write(e + " ");
Console.WriteLine();
});
Console.ReadLine();
return;
}

Based on the solution proposed by Andrew, here is a more generic solution.
Declaration and instance creation of the delayed action:
public DelayedSingleAction<Account> SendMailD;
Create the instance inside a function or in the constructor (this can be a collection of such actions each working on a different object):
SendMailD = new DelayedSingleAction<Account>(SendMail, AccountRef, 5000);
repeatedly call this action
SendMailD.PerformAction();
Send mail is the action you will "burst control". Its signature matches :
public int SendMail(Account A)
{}
Here is the updated class
public class DelayedSingleAction<T>
{
private readonly Func<T, int> actionOnObj;
private T tInstance;
private readonly long millisecondsDelay;
private long _syncValue = 1;
public DelayedSingleAction(Func<T, int> ActionOnObj, T TInstance, long MillisecondsDelay)
{
actionOnObj = ActionOnObj;
tInstance = TInstance;
millisecondsDelay = MillisecondsDelay;
}
private Task _waitingTask = null;
private void DoActionAndClearTask(Task _)
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0:h:mm:ss.fff} DelayedSingleAction Resetting SyncObject: Thread {1} for {2}", DateTime.Now, System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, tInstance));
Interlocked.Exchange(ref _syncValue, 1);
actionOnObj(tInstance);
}
public void PerformAction()
{
if (Interlocked.Exchange(ref _syncValue, 0) == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0:h:mm:ss.fff} DelayedSingleAction Starting the timer: Thread {1} for {2}", DateTime.Now, System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, tInstance));
_waitingTask = Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(millisecondsDelay)).ContinueWith(DoActionAndClearTask);
}
}
public Task Complete()
{
return _waitingTask ?? Task.FromResult(0);
}
}

Implementing simple cache in Windows Phone 8.1 Class Library

I am trying to implement a simple caching mechanism in a windows phone 8.1 API that I am creating. I have chosen a Windows Phone Portable Class Library template in visual studio.
Refrence : http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/Windows-Phone-8-1-Development-for-Absolute-Beginners/Part-22-Storing-and-Retrieving-Serialized-Data
The cache class looks something like this,
[DataContract]
class cache
{
private const string JSONFILENAME = "data.json";
[DataMember]
Dictionary<Int32, item> cDictionary;
[DataMember]
int _maxSize;
public int MaxSize
{
get { return _maxSize; }
set { _maxSize = value; }
}
public cache(int maxSize){
cDictionary = new Dictionary<int, item>();
_maxSize = maxSize;
}
public void push(Int32 id, item obj)
{
if (!cDictionary.ContainsKey(id)) {
cDictionary.Add(id, obj);
}
}
internal static async Task<cache> Load()
{
cache obj = null;
try
{
var jsonSerializer = new DataContractJsonSerializer(typeof(cache));
using (var myStream = await ApplicationData.Current.LocalFolder.OpenStreamForReadAsync(JSONFILENAME))
{
obj = (cache)jsonSerializer.ReadObject(myStream);
}
}
catch (FileNotFoundException)
{
obj = null;
}
return obj;
}
internal static async void Save(cache obj)
{
var serializer = new DataContractJsonSerializer(typeof(cache));
using (var stream = await ApplicationData.Current.LocalFolder.OpenStreamForWriteAsync(
JSONFILENAME,
CreationCollisionOption.ReplaceExisting))
{
serializer.WriteObject(stream, obj);
}
}}
The item class whose objects go into the dictionary looks like this,
[DataContract]
class item
{
[DataMember]
string _fName;
public string FName
{
get { return _fName; }
set { _fName = value; }
}
[DataMember]
string _lName;
public string LName
{
get { return _lName; }
set { _lName = value; }
}
[DataMember]
int _id;
public int Id
{
get { return _id; }
set { _id = value; }
}
public item(int id, string fName, string lName)
{
this.Id = id;
this.FName = fName;
this.LName = lName;
}
}
The idea is : The end user creates an instance of the api and calls a method doSomething(). The method first looks in the cache (not shown in the example) if found, returns the Item object back, or else, gets the item object from a web service(not shown) and then push it to cache.
public class api
{
cache tCache;
string apiKey;
public laas(string apiKey)
{
this.apiKey = apiKey;
this.tCache = new cache(100);
}
public async void Initialize(api obj)
{
//If cache exists
obj.tCache = await cache.Load();
if (obj.tCache == null)
{
obj.tCache = new cache(100);
}
}
public void doSomething(string id)
{
tCache.push(id.GetHashCode(),new item(1,"xxxx","xxx"));
cache.Save(tCache);
}
}
I wanted to initialize/load the cache in the constructor of the api class, but since ApplicationData.Current.LocalFolder provide only async methods to read and write data from persistent storage, I created a separate static async class Initiialize() that would load the cache, since making an async constructor makes no sense.
Problem: the statement tCache.push(id.GetHashCode(),new item(1,"xxxx","xxx")); in the doSomething() throws null reference exceptions. This could possibilly be happening because the tCache hasn't been loaded/initialized yet due to the async operation.
I had tried obj.tCache = await cache.Load().Result to wait for the loading to complete, but that hangs my application. (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/jj991977.aspx)
Could you please point me in the right directions here? Is my diagnonis right? Is there a better way to do it? Any pointer is appreciated.
Thanks!

What is probably happening is that you're calling Initialize but not awaiting it, because it is async void.
What you need to do is change:
public async void Initialize(api obj)
To:
public async Task Initialize(api obj)
Then, you'll need to await Initialize(obj) which will ensure that caches completion before use.
Note that async void is ment only for top level event handlers and shouldn't be used otherwise.
Also, the reason Task.Result hangs your application is because it is causing a deadlock, which is related to the way async marshals your synchronization context between calls.

Multithreading BlockingCollection Alternatives to GetConsumingEnumerable() Producer-Consumer

I have a situation where I have multiple producers and multiple consumers. The producers enters a job into a queue. I chose the BlockingCollection and it works great since I need the consumers to wait for a job to be found. However, if I use the GetConsumingEnumerable() feature the order of the items in the collection change... this is not what I need.
It even says in MSDN http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd287186.aspx
that it does not preserve the order of the items.
Does anyone know an alternative for this situation?
I see that the Take method is available but does it also provide a 'wait' condition for the consumer threads?
It says http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd287085.aspx
'A call to Take may block until an item is available to be removed.' Is it better to use TryTake? I really need the thread to wait and keep checking for a job.

Take blocks the thread till something comes available.
TryTake as the name implies tries to do so but returns a bool if it fails or succeeds.
Allowing for more flex using it:
while(goingOn){
if( q.TryTake(out var){
Process(var)
}
else{
DoSomething_Usefull_OrNotUseFull_OrEvenSleep();
}
}
instead of
while(goingOn){
if( var x = q.Take(){
//w'll wait till this ever will happen and then we:
Process(var)
}
}
My votes are for TryTake :-)
EXAMPLE:
public class ProducerConsumer<T> {
public struct Message {
public T Data;
}
private readonly ThreadRunner _producer;
private readonly ThreadRunner _consumer;
public ProducerConsumer(Func<T> produce, Action<T> consume) {
var q = new BlockingCollection<Message>();
_producer = new Producer(produce,q);
_consumer = new Consumer(consume,q);
}
public void Start() {
_producer.Run();
_consumer.Run();
}
public void Stop() {
_producer.Stop();
_consumer.Stop();
}
private class Producer : ThreadRunner {
public Producer(Func<T> produce, BlockingCollection<Message> q) : base(q) {
_produce = produce;
}
private readonly Func<T> _produce;
public override void Worker() {
try {
while (KeepRunning) {
var item = _produce();
MessageQ.TryAdd(new Message{Data = item});
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException) {
WasInterrupted = true;
}
}
}
public abstract class ThreadRunner {
protected readonly BlockingCollection<Message> MessageQ;
protected ThreadRunner(BlockingCollection<Message> q) {
MessageQ = q;
}
protected Thread Runner;
protected bool KeepRunning = true;
public bool WasInterrupted;
public abstract void Worker();
public void Run() {
Runner = new Thread(Worker);
Runner.Start();
}
public void Stop() {
KeepRunning = false;
Runner.Interrupt();
Runner.Join();
}
}
class Consumer : ThreadRunner {
private readonly Action<T> _consume;
public Consumer(Action<T> consume,BlockingCollection<Message> q) : base(q) {
_consume = consume;
}
public override void Worker() {
try {
while (KeepRunning) {
Message message;
if (MessageQ.TryTake(out message, TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100))) {
_consume(message.Data);
}
else {
//There's nothing in the Q so I have some spare time...
//Excellent moment to update my statisics or update some history to logfiles
//for now we sleep:
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
}
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException) {
WasInterrupted = true;
}
}
}
}
}
USAGE:
[Fact]
public void ConsumerShouldConsume() {
var produced = 0;
var consumed = 0;
Func<int> produce = () => {
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
produced++;
return new Random(2).Next(1000);
};
Action<int> consume = c => { consumed++; };
var t = new ProducerConsumer<int>(produce, consume);
t.Start();
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
t.Stop();
Assert.InRange(produced,40,60);
Assert.InRange(consumed, 40, 60);
}