While going over some code in a console application, I saw the nested Task.WhenAll in the SecondInitialize function. I decided to test this function with a large Locations List and see how it reacted.
What I saw is that with about 100 locations, 100*100 = 10,000 Calculate calls, the t.Wait() inside of Start takes about 60 seconds to return or sometimes just hang completely. If i try to click Break All the console application doesn't even respond to my click and visual studio crashes.
When using my 'Easier to read version' inside of SecondInitialize, it also takes a while to return. Consistent behavior.
Now the weird part is, whenever I use the debugger and put a breakpoint inside of the SecondInitialize and then hit continue, it will finish in about 5-7 seconds.
So my question is, why is it hanging taking a long time normally when I see it being faster when I debug inside that function? Another question is whether or not the use of Tasks is being utilized correctly
public void Start()
{
var t = CacheInitialize(locations, CancellationToken.None);
t.Wait();
}
public Task CacheInitialize(IList<Location> locations, CancellationToken token)
{
return SecondInitialize(locations, token);
}
public async Task SecondInitialize(IList<Location> locations, CancellationToken token)
{
await Task.WhenAll(locations.Select(first =>
{
return Task.WhenAll(locations.Where(second => !second.Equals(first)).Select(second =>
{
return Calculate(first, second, token);
}));
}));
//Easier to read version of ^
//var tasks = locations.SelectMany(first => locations.Where(second => !second.Equals(first)).Select(second =>
//{
// return Calculate(first, second, token);
//}));
//await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
//No Tasks.
//for (int x = 0; x < locations.Length; x++)
//{
// for (int y = 0; y < locations.Length; y++)
// {
// if (x == y)
// continue;
// await Calculate(locations[x], locations[y], token).ConfigureAwait(false);
// }
//}
}
public async Task<TripLength> Calculate(Location start, Location finish, CancellationToken token)
{
if (start == finish)
return TripLength.Zero;
var parameters = new RouteParameters
{
Coordinates = new []
{
new Coordinate(start.Latitude, start.Longitude),
new Coordinate(finish.Latitude, finish.Longitude)
}
};
var route = await RunRoute(parameters, token);
return ToTripLength(route);
}
protected Task<RouteResult> RunRoute(RouteParameters routeParams, CancellationToken token)
{
return Task.Run(async () =>
{
var routingTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
RouteResult routeResults;
var status = _routeService.Route(routeParams, out routeResults);
return routeResults;
}, token);
return await routingTask.ConfigureAwait(false);
}, token);
}
The problem seems to be how to calculate routes from all trips connecting a set of locations (origins and destinations?) and calculate the length (cost?) of each route. The expensive work seems to be the call to _routeService.Route and ToTripLength.
Calculating 10K combinations from 100 locations is trivial and doesn't need parallelization. A simple LINQ query would work:
var combinations=( from start in locations
from finish in locations
where start!=finish
select (start,finish))
.ToArray();
What happens after that depends on what _routeService.Route does. If it's a local library, this is a data parallelism problem that tries to calculate 10K data points in the most efficient manner. That can be handled with PLINQ
If it's a call to an external service it's a concurrency problem that shouldn't waste CPU time waiting for 10K remote requests to respond.
Assuming _routeService.Route is a local libary, one can use PLINQ. A couple of helper methods will make writing the query easier though :
RouteParameters locationsToParams((Location start,Location finish) combination)
{
return new RouteParameters {
Coordinates = new[]
{
new Coordinate( start.Latitude, start.Longitude ),
new Coordinate( finish.Latitude, finish.Longitude )
}
};
}
RouteResult callRoute(RouteParameters routeParams)
{
_routeService.Route(routeParams, out var routeResults);
return routeResults;
}
var tripLengths = from cmb in combinations.AsParallel()
let routeParams=locationsToParams(cmb)
let result=callRoute(routeParams)
select ToTripLength(result);
var finalResults = tripLengths.ToArray();
AsParallel() will take the input IEnumerable, in this case combinations, partition it to as many partitions as there are cores and then use one worker task per partition. Each partition's data is fed to its worker task, minimizing the synchronization cost.
This could be used as a quick and rather dirty way to make 10K remote requests, as each call to Route will run on one of the worker tasks. This is wasteful because it blocks a task only to wait for a response. WithDegreeOfParallelism could be used to use more worker tasks than cores, but this still wastes CPU time waiting for a response. Blocking calls start with a SpinWait before a thread is suspended, which means a blocking call to a remote service can use a CPU core while doing nothing. This can seriously harm scalability on a server environment.
var tripLengths = from cmb in combinations.AsParallel()
.WithDegreeOfParalellism(10)
let routeParams=locationsToParams(cmb)
let result=callRoute(routeParams)
select ToTripLength(result);
var finalResults = tripLengths.ToArray();
Since your example is not complete and can’t be compiled it’s kind of hard to see what exactly you are trying to do.
But as far as I can tell there are several problems:
Calling Wait (or Result) on a Task can lead to deadlocks.
Using ConfigureAwait( false ) will help avoid such issues but can’t eliminate all of them.
So best always await a Task when you want to access it’s result.
I don’t see what you are trying to accomplish with nesting Task.WhenAll within Task.WhenAll.
WhenAll returns a single Task which you can just await without Task.WhenAll.
Each Task you create will add some performance overhead, so you should try to create as few task as possible.
Using Task.Run with an async delegate to await another Task(created by Task.Run) makes no sense, you are creating more Tasks than you need.
You can just await a single Task.Run
I tried to create a working example (it won’t do any work) based on your code to show what you should change.
Please note async Main method is only available in C# 7.1 or above.
public class Program
{
public static async Task Main( String[] args )
{
var foo = new Foo();
var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
await foo.Start();
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine($"Elapsed {sw.Elapsed} {sw.ElapsedMilliseconds}ms");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
public class Foo
{
public async Task CacheInitialize( IList<Location> locations, CancellationToken token ) =>
await SecondInitialize( locations, token )
.ConfigureAwait( false );
public async Task<TripLength> Calculate( Location start, Location finish, CancellationToken token )
{
if ( start == finish )
return TripLength.Zero;
var parameters = new RouteParameters
{
Coordinates = new[]
{
new Coordinate( start.Latitude, start.Longitude ),
new Coordinate( finish.Latitude, finish.Longitude )
}
};
var route = await RunRoute( parameters, token );
return new TripLength();
}
public async Task SecondInitialize( IList<Location> locations, CancellationToken token )
{
var tasks = new List<Task>( locations.Count );
foreach ( var outer in locations )
foreach ( var inner in locations )
{
if ( inner.Equals( outer ) )
continue;
tasks.Add( Calculate( outer, inner, token ) );
}
await Task.WhenAll( tasks );
}
public async Task Start()
{
var locations = new List<Location>();
await CacheInitialize( locations, CancellationToken.None )
.ConfigureAwait( false );
}
protected async Task<RouteResult> RunRoute( RouteParameters routeParams, CancellationToken token )
{
return await Task
.Run( () =>
{
//RouteResult routeResults;
//var status = _routeService.Route( routeParams, out routeResults );
//return routeResults;
return new RouteResult();
},
token )
.ConfigureAwait( false );
}
}
public class Coordinate
{
public Double Latitude { get; }
public Double Longitude { get; }
public Coordinate( Double latitude, Double longitude )
{
Latitude = latitude;
Longitude = longitude;
}
}
public class RouteParameters
{
public Coordinate[] Coordinates { get; set; }
}
public class TripLength
{
public static TripLength Zero = new TripLength();
}
public class RouteResult
{
}
public class Location
{
public Double Latitude { get; }
public Double Longitude { get; }
}
Related
I've written a class that asynchronously pings a subnet. It works, however, the number of hosts returned will sometimes change between runs. Some questions:
Am I doing something wrong in the code below?
What can I do to make it work better?
The ScanIPAddressesAsync() method is called like this:
NetworkDiscovery nd = new NetworkDiscovery("192.168.50.");
nd.RaiseIPScanCompleteEvent += HandleScanComplete;
nd.ScanIPAddressesAsync();
namespace BPSTestTool
{
public class IPScanCompleteEvent : EventArgs
{
public List<String> IPList { get; set; }
public IPScanCompleteEvent(List<String> _list)
{
IPList = _list;
}
}
public class NetworkDiscovery
{
private static object m_lockObj = new object();
private List<String> m_ipsFound = new List<string>();
private String m_ipBase = null;
public List<String> IPList
{
get { return m_ipsFound; }
}
public EventHandler<IPScanCompleteEvent> RaiseIPScanCompleteEvent;
public NetworkDiscovery(string ipBase)
{
this.m_ipBase = ipBase;
}
public async void ScanIPAddressesAsync()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
m_ipsFound.Clear();
await Task.Run(() => AsyncScan());
return;
}
private async void AsyncScan()
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 2; i < 255; i++)
{
String ip = m_ipBase + i.ToString();
if (m_ipsFound.Contains(ip) == false)
{
for (int x = 0; x < 2; x++)
{
Ping p = new Ping();
var task = HandlePingReplyAsync(p, ip);
tasks.Add(task);
}
}
}
await Task.WhenAll(tasks).ContinueWith(t =>
{
OnRaiseIPScanCompleteEvent(new IPScanCompleteEvent(m_ipsFound));
});
}
protected virtual void OnRaiseIPScanCompleteEvent(IPScanCompleteEvent args)
{
RaiseIPScanCompleteEvent?.Invoke(this, args);
}
private async Task HandlePingReplyAsync(Ping ping, String ip)
{
PingReply reply = await ping.SendPingAsync(ip, 1500);
if ( reply != null && reply.Status == System.Net.NetworkInformation.IPStatus.Success)
{
lock (m_lockObj)
{
if (m_ipsFound.Contains(ip) == false)
{
m_ipsFound.Add(ip);
}
}
}
}
}
}
One problem I see is async void. The only reason async void is even allowed is only for event handlers. If it's not an event handler, it's a red flag.
Asynchronous methods always start running synchronously until the first await that acts on an incomplete Task. In your code, that is at await Task.WhenAll(tasks). At that point, AsyncScan returns - before all the tasks have completed. Usually, it would return a Task that will let you know when it's done, but since the method signature is void, it cannot.
So now look at this:
await Task.Run(() => AsyncScan());
When AsyncScan() returns, then the Task returned from Task.Run completes and your code moves on, before all of the pings have finished.
So when you report your results, the number of results will be random, depending on how many happened to finish before you displayed the results.
If you want make sure that all of the pings are done before continuing, then change AsyncScan() to return a Task:
private async Task AsyncScan()
And change the Task.Run to await it:
await Task.Run(async () => await AsyncScan());
However, you could also just get rid of the Task.Run and just have this:
await AsyncScan();
Task.Run runs the code in a separate thread. The only reason to do that is in a UI app where you want to move CPU-heavy computations off of the UI thread. When you're just doing network requests like this, that's not necessary.
On top of that, you're also using async void here:
public async void ScanIPAddressesAsync()
Which means that wherever you call ScanIPAddressesAsync() is unable to wait until everything is done. Change that to async Task and await it too.
This code needs a lot of refactoring and bugs like this in concurrency are hard to pinpoint. My bet is on await Task.Run(() => AsyncScan()); which is wrong because AsyncScan() is async and Task.Run(...) will return before it is complete.
My second guess is m_ipsFound which is called a shared state. This means there might be many threads simultaneously reading and writing on this. List<T> is not a data type for this.
Also as a side point having a return in the last line of a method is not adding to the readability and async void is a prohibited practice. Always use async Task even if you return nothing. You can read more on this very good answer.
I have a windows service which is consuming a messaging system to fetch messages. I have also created a callback mechanism with the help of Timer class which helps me to check the message after some fixed time to fetch and process. Previously, the service is processing the message one by one. But I want after the message arrives the processing mechanism to execute in parallel. So if the first message arrived it should go for processing on one task and even if the processing is not finished for the first message still after the interval time configured using the callback method (callback is working now) next message should be picked and processed on a different task.
Below is my code:
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Subsriber<Message> subsriber = new Subsriber<Message>()
{
Interval = 1000
};
subsriber.Callback(Process, m => m != null);
});
public static void Process(Message message)
{
if (message != null)
{
// Processing logic
}
else
{
}
}
But using the Task Factory I am not able to control the number of tasks in parallel so in my case I want to configure the number of tasks on which messages will run on the availability of the tasks?
Update:
Updated my above code to add multiple tasks
Below is the code:
private static void Main()
{
try
{
int taskCount = 5;
Task.Factory.StartNewAsync(() =>
{
Subscriber<Message> consumer = new
Subcriber<Message>()
{
Interval = 1000
};
consumer.CallBack(Process, msg => msg!=
null);
}, taskCount);
Console.ReadLine();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
public static void StartNewAsync(this TaskFactory
target, Action action, int taskCount)
{
var tasks = new Task[taskCount];
for (int i = 0; i < taskCount; i++)
{
tasks[i] = target.StartNew(action);
}
}
public static void Process(Message message)
{
if (message != null)
{
}
else
{ }
}
}
I think what your looking for will result in quite a large sample. I'm trying just to demonstrate how you would do this with ActionBlock<T>. There's still a lot of unknowns so I left the sample as skeleton you can build off. In the sample the ActionBlock will handle and process in parallel all your messages as they're received from your messaging system
public class Processor
{
private readonly IMessagingSystem _messagingSystem;
private readonly ActionBlock<Message> _handler;
private bool _pollForMessages;
public Processor(IMessagingSystem messagingSystem)
{
_messagingSystem = messagingSystem;
_handler = new ActionBlock<Message>(msg => Process(msg), new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions()
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 5 //or any configured value
});
}
public async Task Start()
{
_pollForMessages = true;
while (_pollForMessages)
{
var msg = await _messagingSystem.ReceiveMessageAsync();
await _handler.SendAsync(msg);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
_pollForMessages = false;
}
private void Process(Message message)
{
//handle message
}
}
More Examples
And Ideas
Ok, sorry I'm short on time but here's the general idea/skeleton of what I was thinking as an alternative.
If I'm honest though I think the ActionBlock<T> is the better option as there's just so much done for you, with the only limit being that you can't dynamically scale the amount of work it will do it once, although I think the limit can be quite high. If you get into doing it this way you could have more control or just have a kind of dynamic amount of tasks running but you'll have to do a lot of things manually, e.g if you want to limit the amount of tasks running at a time, you'd have to implement a queueing system (something ActionBlock handles for you) and then maintain it. I guess it depends on how many messages you're receiving and how fast your process handles them.
You'll have to check it out and think of how it could apply to your direct use case as I think some of the details area a little sketchily implemented on my side around the concurrentbag idea.
So the idea behind what I've thrown together here is that you can start any number of tasks, or add to the tasks running or cancel tasks individually by using the collection.
The main thing I think is just making the method that the Callback runs fire off a thread that does the work, instead of subscribing within a separate thread.
I used Task.Factory.StartNew as you did, but stored the returned Task object in an object (TaskInfo) which also had it's CancellationTokenSource, it's Id (assigned externally) as properties, and then added that to a collection of TaskInfo which is a property on the class this is all a part of:
Updated - to avoid this being too confusing i've just updated the code that was here previously.
You'll have to update bits of it and fill in the blanks in places like with whatever you have for my HeartbeatController, and the few events that get called because they're beyond the scope of the question but the idea would be the same.
public class TaskContainer
{
private ConcurrentBag<TaskInfo> Tasks;
public TaskContainer(){
Tasks = new ConcurrentBag<TaskInfo>();
}
//entry point
//UPDATED
public void StartAndMonitor(int processorCount)
{
for (int i = 0; i <= processorCount; i++)
{
Processor task = new Processor(ProcessorId = i);
CreateProcessorTask(task);
}
this.IsRunning = true;
MonitorTasks();
}
private void CreateProcessorTask(Processor processor)
{
CancellationTokenSource cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task taskInstance = Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => processor.Start(cancellationTokenSource.Token)
);
//bind status update event
processor.ProcessorStatusUpdated += ReportProcessorProcess;
Tasks.Add(new ProcessorInfo()
{
ProcessorId = processor.ProcessorId,
Task = taskInstance,
CancellationTokenSource = cancellationTokenSource
});
}
//this method gets called once but the HeartbeatController gets an action as a param that it then
//executes on a timer. I haven't included that but you get the idea
//This method also checks for tasks that have stopped and restarts them if the manifest call says they should be running.
//Will also start any new tasks included in the manifest and stop any that aren't included in the manifest.
internal void MonitorTasks()
{
HeartbeatController.Beat(() =>
{
HeartBeatHappened?.Invoke(this, null);
List<int> tasksToStart = new List<int>();
//this is an api call or whatever drives your config that says what tasks must be running.
var newManifest = this.GetManifest(Properties.Settings.Default.ResourceId);
//task Removed Check - If a Processor is removed from the task pool, cancel it if running and remove it from the Tasks List.
List<int> instanceIds = new List<int>();
newManifest.Processors.ForEach(x => instanceIds.Add(x.ProcessorId));
var removed = Tasks.Select(x => x.ProcessorId).ToList().Except(instanceIds).ToList();
if (removed.Count() > 0)
{
foreach (var extaskId in removed)
{
var task = Tasks.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == extaskId);
task.CancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
}
}
foreach (var newtask in newManifest.Processors)
{
var oldtask = Tasks.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == newtask.ProcessorId);
//Existing task check
if (oldtask != null && oldtask.Task != null)
{
if (!oldtask.Task.IsCanceled && (oldtask.Task.IsCompleted || oldtask.Task.IsFaulted))
{
var ex = oldtask.Task.Exception;
tasksToStart.Add(oldtask.ProcessorId);
continue;
}
}
else //New task Check
tasksToStart.Add(newtask.ProcessorId);
}
foreach (var item in tasksToStart)
{
var taskToRemove = Tasks.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == item);
if (taskToRemove != null)
Tasks.Remove(taskToRemove);
var task = newManifest.Processors.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == item);
if (task != null)
{
CreateProcessorTask(task);
}
}
});
}
}
//UPDATED
public class Processor{
private int ProcessorId;
private Subsriber<Message> subsriber;
public Processor(int processorId) => ProcessorId = processorId;
public void Start(CancellationToken token)
{
Subsriber<Message> subsriber = new Subsriber<Message>()
{
Interval = 1000
};
subsriber.Callback(Process, m => m != null);
}
private void Process()
{
//do work
}
}
Hope this gives you an idea of how else you can approach your problem and that I didn't miss the point :).
Update
To use events to update progress or which tasks are processing, I'd extract them into their own class, which then has subscribe methods on it, and when creating a new instance of that class, assign the event to a handler in the parent class which can then update your UI or whatever you want it to do with that info.
So the content of Process() would look more like this:
Processor processor = new Processor();
Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => processor.ProcessMessage(cancellationTokenSource.CancellationToken));
processor.StatusUpdated += ReportProcess;
Say I had a list of algorithms, each containing an async call somewhere in the body of that algorithm. The order in which I execute the algorithms is the order in which I want to receive the results. That is, I want the AlgorithmResult List to look like {Algorithm1Result, Algorithm2Result, Algorithm3Result} after all the algorithms have executed. Would I be right in saying that if Algorithm1 and 3 finished before 2 that my results would actually be in the order {Algorithm1Result, Algorithm3Result, Algorithm2Result}
var algorithms = new List<Algorithm>(){Algorithm1, Algorithm2, Algorithm3};
var algorithmResults = new List<AlgorithmResults>();
foreach (var algorithm in algorithms)
{
algorithmResults.Add(await algorithm.Execute());
}
NO, Result would be in the same order you added it to the list, since each operation is being waited for separately.
class Program
{
public static async Task<int> GetResult(int timing)
{
return await Task<int>.Run(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(timing * 1000);
return timing;
});
}
public static async Task<List<int>> GetAll()
{
List<int> tasks = new List<int>();
tasks.Add(await GetResult(3));
tasks.Add(await GetResult(2));
tasks.Add(await GetResult(1));
return tasks;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var res = GetAll().Result;
}
}
res anyway contains list in order it was added, also this is not parallel execution.
Since you don't add the tasks, but the results of the task after awaiting, they will be in the order you want.
Even if you did not await the result before adding the next task you could get the order you want:
in small steps, showing type awareness:
List<Task<AlgorithmResult>> tasks = new List<Task<AlgorithmResult>>();
foreach (Algorithm algorithm in algorithms)
{
Task<AlgorithmResult> task = algorithm.Execute();
// don't wait until task Completes, just remember the Task
// and continue executing the next Algorithm
tasks.Add(task);
}
Now some Tasks may be running, some may already have completed. Let's wait until they are all complete, and fetch the results:
Task.WhenAll(tasks.ToArray());
List<AlgrithmResults> results = tasks.Select(task => task.Result).ToList();
I'm kinda new to async tasks.
I've a function that takes student ID and scrapes data from specific university website with the required ID.
private static HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
public static async Task<Student> ParseAsync(string departmentLink, int id, CancellationToken ct)
{
string website = string.Format(departmentLink, id);
try
{
string data;
var stream = await client.GetAsync(website, ct);
using (var reader = new StreamReader(await stream.Content.ReadAsStreamAsync(), Encoding.GetEncoding("windows-1256")))
data = reader.ReadToEnd();
//Parse data here and return Student.
} catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
}
And it works correctly. Sometimes though I need to run this function for a lot of students so I use the following
for(int i = ids.first; i <= ids.last; i++)
{
tasks[i - ids.first] = ParseStudentData.ParseAsync(entity.Link, i, cts.Token).ContinueWith(t =>
{
Dispatcher.Invoke(() =>
{
listview_students.Items.Add(t.Result);
//Students.Add(t.Result);
//lbl_count.Content = $"{listview_students.Items.Count}/{testerino.Length}";
});
});
}
I'm storing tasks in an array to wait for them later.
This also works finely as long as the students count is between (0, ~600?) it's kinda random.
And then for every other student that still hasn't been parsed throws A task was cancelled.
Keep in mind that, I never use the cancellation token at all.
I need to run this function on so many students it can reach ~9000 async task altogether. So what's happening?
You are basically creating a denial of service attack on the website when you are queuing up 9000 requests in such a short time frame. Not only is this causing you errors, but it could take down the website. It would be best to limit the number of concurrent requests to a more reasonable value (say 30). While there are probably several ways to do this, one that comes to mind is the following:
private async Task Test()
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = ids.first; i <= ids.last; i++)
{
tasks.Add(/* Do stuff */);
await WaitList(tasks, 30);
}
}
private async Task WaitList(IList<Task> tasks, int maxSize)
{
while (tasks.Count > maxSize)
{
var completed = await Task.WhenAny(tasks).ConfigureAwait(false);
tasks.Remove(completed);
}
}
Other approaches might leverage the producer/consumer pattern using .Net classes such as a BlockingCollection
This is what I ended up with based on #erdomke code:
public static async Task ForEachParallel<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> list,
Func<T, Task> action,
int dop)
{
var tasks = new List<Task>(dop);
foreach (var item in list)
{
tasks.Add(action(item));
while (tasks.Count >= dop)
{
var completed = await Task.WhenAny(tasks).ConfigureAwait(false);
tasks.Remove(completed);
}
}
// Wait for all remaining tasks.
await Task.WhenAll(tasks).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
// usage
await Enumerable
.Range(1, 500)
.ForEachParallel(i => ProcessItem(i), Environment.ProcessorCount);
I have a list of objects that I need to run a long running process on and I would like to kick them off asynchronously, then when they are all finished return them as a list to the calling method. I've been trying different methods that I have found, however it appears that the processes are still running synchronously in the order that they are in the list. So I am sure that I am missing something in the process of how to execute a list of tasks.
Here is my code:
public async Task<List<ShipmentOverview>> GetShipmentByStatus(ShipmentFilterModel filter)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(filter.Status))
{
throw new InvalidShipmentStatusException(filter.Status);
}
var lookups = GetLookups(false, Brownells.ConsolidatedShipping.Constants.ShipmentStatusType);
var lookup = lookups.SingleOrDefault(sd => sd.Name.ToLower() == filter.Status.ToLower());
if (lookup != null)
{
filter.StatusId = lookup.Id;
var shipments = Shipments.GetShipments(filter);
var tasks = shipments.Select(async model => await GetOverview(model)).ToList();
ShipmentOverview[] finishedTask = await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
return finishedTask.ToList();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidShipmentStatusException(filter.Status);
}
}
private async Task<ShipmentOverview> GetOverview(ShipmentModel model)
{
String version;
var user = AuthContext.GetUserSecurityModel(Identity.Token, out version) as UserSecurityModel;
var profile = AuthContext.GetProfileSecurityModel(user.Profiles.First());
var overview = new ShipmentOverview
{
Id = model.Id,
CanView = true,
CanClose = profile.HasFeatureAction("Shipments", "Close", "POST"),
CanClear = profile.HasFeatureAction("Shipments", "Clear", "POST"),
CanEdit = profile.HasFeatureAction("Shipments", "Get", "PUT"),
ShipmentNumber = model.ShipmentNumber.ToString(),
ShipmentName = model.Name,
};
var parcels = Shipments.GetParcelsInShipment(model.Id);
overview.NumberParcels = parcels.Count;
var orders = parcels.Select(s => WareHouseClient.GetOrderNumberFromParcelId(s.ParcelNumber)).ToList();
overview.NumberOrders = orders.Distinct().Count();
//check validations
var vals = Shipments.GetShipmentValidations(model.Id);
if (model.ValidationTypeId == Constants.OrderValidationType)
{
if (vals.Count > 0)
{
overview.NumberOrdersTotal = vals.Count();
overview.NumberParcelsTotal = vals.Sum(s => WareHouseClient.GetParcelsPerOrder(s.ValidateReference));
}
}
return overview;
}
It looks like you're using asynchronous methods while you really want threads.
Asynchronous methods yield control back to the calling method when an async method is called, then wait until the methods has completed on the await. You can see how it works here.
Basically, the only usefulness of async/await methods is not to lock the UI, so that it stays responsive.
If you want to fire multiple processings in parallel, you will want to use threads, like such:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
public void MainMethod() {
// Parallel.ForEach will automagically run the "right" number of threads in parallel
Parallel.ForEach(shipments, shipment => ProcessShipment(shipment));
// do something when all shipments have been processed
}
public void ProcessShipment(Shipment shipment) { ... }
Marking the method as async doesn't auto-magically make it execute in parallel. Since you're not using await at all, it will in fact execute completely synchronously as if it wasn't async. You might have read somewhere that async makes functions execute asynchronously, but this simply isn't true - forget it. The only thing it does is build a state machine to handle task continuations for you when you use await and actually build all the code to manage those tasks and their error handling.
If your code is mostly I/O bound, use the asynchronous APIs with await to make sure the methods actually execute in parallel. If they are CPU bound, a Task.Run (or Parallel.ForEach) will work best.
Also, there's no point in doing .Select(async model => await GetOverview(model). It's almost equivalent to .Select(model => GetOverview(model). In any case, since the method actually doesn't return an asynchronous task, it will be executed while doing the Select, long before you get to the Task.WhenAll.
Given this, even the GetShipmentByStatus's async is pretty much useless - you only use await to await the Task.WhenAll, but since all the tasks are already completed by that point, it will simply complete synchronously.
If your tasks are CPU bound and not I/O bound, then here is the pattern I believe you're looking for:
static void Main(string[] args) {
Task firstStepTask = Task.Run(() => firstStep());
Task secondStepTask = Task.Run(() => secondStep());
//...
Task finalStepTask = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll(
new Task[] { step1Task, step2Task }, //more if more than two steps...
(previousTasks) => finalStep());
finalStepTask.Wait();
}