We Keep Coding

Is there a way to await a flag change in a function?

I've attempted to make a simple step mode for an algorithm I'm running, and here is how it looks like:
public async Task<bool> AStarAlgorithmAsync(PFSquare curr = null)
{
// some algorithm code here
foreach(var square in Sorroundings)
{
if (SteppedMode)
{
await Task.Run(Pause);
}
if (await AStarAlgorithmAsync(square))
{
return true;
}
}
}
In my application, I have a Boolean called SteppedMode that decides if the algorithm should run one iteration per click event.
Pause() looks like this:
private void Pause()
{
while (!ContinueStep) { }
ContinueStep = false;
return;
}
And in another part of my (GUI) application I have an event which sets the boolean ContinueStep to true which in theory should end the while loop and continue the algorithm function. Currently this bit of code locks my GUI thread up and I'm almost certain there is a better way to do this.
I'm trying to get my algorithm function to run one iteration, wait for a click from the user and only then continue running the algorithm. Is there an easier and cleaner way to do this?
(This is a GUI application, not a console application.)

Your property is moonlighting as a method.
It makes no sense to set a property, to then have that property revert back to its original state immediately. As a consumer, I would be majorly confused by that behavior. Think about this code:
var myObj = new MyObject();
myObj.MyBoolean = true;
Console.WriteLine(myObj.MyBoolean); // FALSE!?
It just doesn't make sense.
The only effect you want to trigger by setting this property is to execute some code. That's exactly what methods are supposed to be used for:
public void ContinueStep()
{
Console.WriteLine("I did some work");
}
So instead of this:
myObj.ContinueStep = true;
you should be doing this:
myObject.ContinueStep();
This doesn't lock up your UI thread, while also being a lot more sensical to your consumer. The method suggests that some action will be taken (which may or may not lead to state changes in the object - that's a contextual expectation).
Infinite recursion
As an aside; based on your code, AStarAlgorithmAsync is a recursive function, and seemingly infinitely so. There doesn't seem to be an ending condition.
Every recursive level will interate over the first surrounding and then trigger the next level, which again will interate over the first surrounding and then trigger the next level, which again ...
That can't be right, but it's unclear to me how to fix it as the bigger picture is not explained in your question
A simple implementation
What I'm trying to do is get my algorithm function to run one iteration, wait for a click from the user and only then continue running the algorithm, is there an easier and cleaner way to do this?
A simple example of such a thing:
private int _index = 0;
private List<object> _myList = ...; // assume this list contains some elements
public void ProcessNextObject()
{
if(_index < _myList.Length)
{
Process(_myList[_index]);
_index++;
}
}
private void Process(object o)
{
Console.WriteLine("Processing this object!");
}
You can then hook up your click event to call ProcessNextObject().
Note that in this example, the list is processed once and cannot be processed again. By manipulating the index value, you can change that behavior as you like.

What Unity API's are not allowed in async callbacks?

I saw somewhere that within a Thread in Unity, you couldn't use Unity API's.
I'm wondering if this is also the case for async callbacks in general (for example a function assigned to WebSocket.OnMessage when using WebSocketSharp), and if so then is there a way to know what is allowed and what isn't (i.e. what are "Unity API's")?
As an example, when using WebSocketSharp's WebSocket.OnMessage, I put this in my Start function of a MonoBehavior:
// ws is a WebSocketSharp.WebSocket
// displayText is a UnityEngine.UI.Text
ws.OnMessage += (sender, evt) =>
{
// 1
boo = UnityEngine.Random.Range(1, 1000).ToString();
// 2
displayText.text = "Heyoo";
};
The line under 1 errors (no logs just beyond it) but no error message shows. Whereas when that line is not inside this callback (top-level of Update for example), I can see its result no problem.
As for the line under 2, the Inspector in Unity shows the updated text, but the Play screen does not, until I update an attribute in the Inspector, as if the text field did get updated, but when it needed to use a Unity API to update the screen, it failed, so it's not until a separate update happens that it actually appears.
That's my hypothesis for these odd behaviors, so please let me know if that is correct, and if there's a succinct (or documented) way to describe what I'm describing.

async in general means exactly this: Not in the main thread.
It is hard to answer what is supported and what not in other threads then the mainthread ... short: Most things are not supported.
The UnityEngine.Random.Range(1, 1000).ToString(); should work. But be carefull with assignments!
A known workaround is to create like a callback worker and pass Actions to execute back to the main thread like e.g.:
public class MainThreadWorker : MonoBehaviour
{
// singleton pattern
public static MainThreadWorker Instance;
// added actions will be executed in the main thread
ConcurrentQueue<Action> actions = new ConcurrentQueue<Action>();
private void Awake()
{
if (Instance)
{
this.enabled = false;
return;
}
Instance = this;
}
private void Update()
{
// execute all actions added since the last frame
while (actions.TryDequeue(out var action))
{
action?.Invoke();
}
}
public void AddAction(Action action)
{
if(action != null) actions.Enqueue(action);
}
}
Having this in your scene somewhere you can now pass an action back to the main thread like
ws.OnMessage += (sender, evt) =>
{
MainThreadWorker.Instance.AddAction(()=>
{
// 1
boo = UnityEngine.Random.Range(1, 1000).ToString();
// 2
displayText.text = "Heyoo";
});
};

Waiting while KeyPressed in XNA

I'm trying to learn XNA game programming, now i would like to wait while a Key is Pressed
I have Test it with:
while (IsKeyPressed = Keyboard.GetState().IsKeyDown(key));
But IsKeyPressed is also true when the key was released

That code is effectively a spin lock. Don't use spin-locks.
The bug you are seeing is likely because you are using a spin-lock, its not getting a chance to update properly.
Instead, you should read the key being pressed, and set state in whatever class is relevant to stop processing (likely a simple if check in the Update function). Then, when you detect the release, you change the state so the if check will pass.
Something like:
//Main Update
if (Keyboard.GetState().IsKeyDown(key))
myObject.Wait();
else
myObject.Continue();
//Other object
public void Wait()
{
waiting = true;
}
public void Continue()
{
waiting = false;
}
public void Update()
{
if (!waiting)
{
//Update state
}
}
You could always check previous state to avoid calling Wait and Continue repeatedly, but thats going to be something of a micro-optimization with the code provided.

Run event once during Update() XNA / C#

this is the best way I can think of doing this. Could you give me so hints as to whether this is the correct way or if there is a more efficient way of doing it.
My situation is:
Each time the frame is Update()'ed (Like in XNA) I want to check if something has happened.. Like if the timer for that screen has been running for over 2000 milliseconds. But I only want it to fire once, not every time the frame is updated. This would cause a problem:
if(totalMilliseconds > 2000)
{
this.Fader.FadeIn();
}
So I came up with this method that I have implemented in the GameScreen class that looks like this:
public bool RunOnce(string Alias, bool IsTrue)
{
if (!this.Bools.ContainsKey(Alias))
this.Bools.Add(Alias, false);
if (IsTrue && !this.Bools[Alias])
{
this.Bools[Alias] = true;
return true;
}
else
return false;
}
This basically checks if the passed if statement boolean is true, if it is then it fires once and not again unless the Bool["Alias"] is set back to false. I use it like this:
if(this.RunOnce("fadeInStarted", totalMilliseconds > 2000))
{
this.Fader.FadeIn();
}
This will then only run one time and I think is quite easily readable code-wise.
The reason I have posted this is for two reasons.. Firstly because I wanted to show how I have overcome the problem as it may be of some help to others who had the same problem.. And secondly to see if I have missed an obvious way of doing this without creating a manual method for it, or if it could be done more efficiently.

Your method is interesting, I don't see a problem with it, you've essentially created a new programming construct.
I haven't encountered this situation a lot so what I have done in this situation is always start with the untidy approach:
bool _hasFadedIn = false;
.
if(totalMilliseconds > 2000 && !_hasFadedIn)
{
this.Fader.FadeIn();
_hasFadedIn = true;
}
And 90% of the time I leave it like that. I only change things if the class starts growing too big. What I would do then is this:
_faderControl.Update(totalMilliseconds);
Put the logic for fader control into a separate class, so:
class FaderControl
{
bool _hasFadedIn=false;
public void Update(int totalMilliseconds)
{
if (_hasFadedIn)
return;
if (totalMilliseconds <= 2000)
return;
this.Fader.FadeIn();
_hasFadedIn=true;
}
}
It can be modified to make it configurable, like reseting, setting "start", "end", fadein time, or also controlling fadeout too.

Here's how I would approach this problem.
These are your requirements:
You have arbitrary pieces of logic which you want to execute inside of your Update().
The logic in question has a predicate associated with it which determines whether the action is ready to execute.
The action should execute at most once.
The core concept here is "action with an associated predicate," so create a data structure which represents that concept:
public class ConditionalAction
{
public ConditionalAction(Action action, Func<Boolean> predicate)
{
this.Action = action;
this.Predicate = predicate;
}
public Action Action { get; private set; }
public Func<Boolean> Predicate { get; private set; }
}
So now, your example becomes
var action = new ConditionalAction(
() => this.Fader.FadeIn(),
() => totalMilliseconds > 2000);
In your Update() you need something that can execute these conditional actions:
public void Update(GameTime time)
{
// for each conditional action that hasn't run yet:
// check the action's predicate
// if true:
// execute action
// remove action from list of pending actions
}
Because their predicates are probably unrelated, actions don't necessarily run in order. So this isn't a simple queue of actions. It's a list of actions from which actions can be removed in arbitrary order.
I'm going to implement this as a linked list in order to demonstrate the concept, but that's probably not the best way to implement this in production code. Linked lists allocate memory on the managed heap, which is generally something to be avoided in XNA. However, coming up with a better data structure for this purpose is an exercise best left for another day.
private readonly LinkedList<ConditionalAction> pendingConditionalActions =
new LinkedList<ConditionalAction>();
public void Update(GameTime time)
{
for (var current = pendingConditionalActions.First; current != null; current = current.Next)
{
if (current.Value.Predicate())
{
current.Value.Action();
pendingConditionalActions.Remove(current);
}
}
}
public void RegisterConditionalAction(ConditionalAction action)
{
pendingConditionalActions.AddLast(action);
}
Registered actions will wait until their predicates become true, at which point they will be executed and removed from the list of pending actions, ensuring that they only run once.

C# Subscribe dynamically anonymous method

Hello yeah I'm asking this question a second time, sorry about that but I don't know how to bump previous question. I'll explain more in depth my problem in a more completed example.
Instead of writing like 300+ Event classes in 300 class files which I may have to do if this doesn't work, so they can do little timed jobs like this example job below in a server project.
What i'm trying to avoid is writing a bunch of classes and simply just write everything more compacted in structure of whatever i'm working on.
To sum it up, i'm mixing 90% functional programming and want to give some function some delayed timed event, without creating the new timed event in a separate class then running back and forth through the files looking how everything is linked up, but this way everything can be seen so you can find bugs and whatnot much faster as everything is right in front of you, kinda like writing loop code, but with delay.
All I have right now is one thread which processes events, deletes events which have been stopped, keeps re-running events which don't stop after one cycle and of course waiting until some events can be ran.
If anyone knows a better way to do what i'm trying to do maybe some built-in C# Event system? Which is preferably simple.
class Event {
private Action action;
private bool stopped;
public Event(long tick, Action action) {
this.tick = tick;
this.action = action;
this.lastRun = Environment.TickCount;
}
public void stop() {
stopped = true;
}
public bool canRun() { //blah ignore just showing what I plan to do
if (stopped)
return false;
return (Environment.TickCount - lastRun) > tick;
}
public void run() {
this.lastRun = Environment.TickCount;
action();
}
//... other methods
}
class Test {
string t;
public void setT(string t) {
this.t = t;
}
public void stuff() {
Console.WriteLine(a);
}
}
class ImportantWork {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
someDeepMethod();
}
void someDeepMethod() {
Test t = new Test();
t.setT("secondTime");
//Here is where the problem occurs.
Server.registerEvent(new Event(5000, () => {
this.stop(); //<-- Error how I call this from this new Event instance.
stop(); //<-- Also error
//Event.stop(); //<-- haha may work if it was static but thats stupid
t.stuff();
Console.WriteLine("thirdTime");
}));
t.setT("firstTime");
t.stuff();
}
}
Expected output:
firstTime
...waits 5 seconds...
secondTime
thirdTime

I don't know how you'd be able to do that inline like that. Why can't you use some kind of set-function and make it two lines?
MyEvent newEvent;
Server.registerEvent((newEvent = new MyEvent(5000)));
newEvent.setAction(() => {
newEvent.stop();
t.stuff();
Console.WriteLine("thirdTime");
});
It seems to me like there's some kind of structural issue with your design. I'm assuming that the example you provided was not actually what you were working with, just a simple example to address the problem you're having. If it is, however, the example you're working with why don't you just add a boolean flag in the constructor to tell the instance whether or not to call this.stop() on itself - instead of requiring it specified in the Action?
Best of luck!