We Keep Coding

Is a method always async if it has the key word "async" and "await"? [duplicate]

I've been trying to understand async/await and Task in C# but have been failing spectacularly despite watching youtube videos, reading documentation and following a pluralsight course.
I was hoping someone might be able to help answer these slightly abstract questions to help my brain out.
1.Why do they say that async/await enables an 'asynchonrous' method when the async keyword on it's own does nothing and the await keyword adds a suspension point? Isn't adding a suspension point forcing the method to act synchronously, i.e. finish the task marked by the await before moving on.
2.Apparently you are not supposed to use async void except for event handlers, so how do you call an async method normally? It seems that in order to call an async method by using the await keyword, the method/class that is calling it itself needs to be marked as async. All the examples I've seen have 'initiated' an async void method with an event handler. How would you 'escape' this wrapping of async/await to run the method?
3.
public async Task SaveScreenshot(string filename, IWebDriver driver)
{
var screenshot = driver.TakeScreenshot();
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
screenshot.SaveAsFile(filename, ScreenshotImageFormat.Bmp);
Console.WriteLine("Screenshot saved");
});
Console.WriteLine("End of method");
}
Relating back to 1. this looks like a synchronous method. Execution pauses when it gets to Task.Run, therefore Console.WriteLine("End of method"); will not be executed until the task is finished. Maybe the whole method itself will be executed asynchronously at the point it is triggered in the code? But relating back to 2, you need to call this with an await otherwise you get the message 'Because this call is not awaited..' therefore adding an await will cause that execution point to be synchronous and so on and so.
Any help understanding this would be much appreciated.

Isn't adding a suspension point forcing the method to act synchronously, i.e. finish the task marked by the await before moving on.
No, the word you're thinking of is "sequential", not "synchronous". await results in asynchronous sequential code. "Sequential" meaning "one at a time"; "synchronous" meaning "blocking until completed".
how do you call an async method normally?
Using await.
How would you 'escape' this wrapping of async/await to run the method?
Ideally, you don't. You go async all the way. Modern frameworks (including ASP.NET MVC, Azure Functions / WebJobs, NUnit / xUnit / MSTest, etc) all allow you to have entry points that return Task. Less-modern frameworks (including WinForms, WPF, Xamarin Forms, ASP.NET WebForms, etc) all allow async void entry points.
So, ideally you do not call asynchronous code from synchronous code. This makes sense if you think about what asynchronous code is: the entire point of it is to not block the calling thread, so if you block the calling thread on asynchronous code, then you lose all the benefits of asynchronous code in the first place.
That said, there are rare situations where you do need to treat the code synchronously. E.g., if you are in the middle of a transition to async, or if you are constrained by a library/framework that is forcing your code to be synchronous and won't work with async void. In that case, you can employ one of the hacks in my article on brownfield async.

Your understanding is pretty good :). The main point you seem to be missing is that "asynchronous" methods in .NET mean methods that can stop execution without blocking the calling thread.
As you pointed out in (1), the async keyword basically enables the use of await and requires the return type to be void or Task/Task<T>. await just instructs the current method to suspend execution until the task is complete.
What you are missing here is that it suspends just the current method. It does not block the thread the method was executing on. This is important in cases like the UI thread of a WPF application. Suspend method execution and everything keeps running, block the thread and the application stops responding.
You usually want your async calls to go all the way to the top (like an event handler), this allows the most flexibility and prevents deadlock situations. However; you can wait for a Task returning method to complete with Wait:
someAsyncMethod.Wait()
Or get the return value:
var result = someAsyncMethod.Result;
Note that both of these are synchronous and block the calling thread. Doing this can cause deadlock if the async task is waiting for some other work on the calling thread to complete.
The above should answer your question in (3); the method itself appears to execute synchronously (this is the magic of await/async) but the task doesn't block the calling thread.

It is asynchronous because you don't have to wait the method to return. In your code, you may call the async method and save the task in a variable. Continue doing something else. Later, when the method result is needed, you await the response (task).
// Synchronous method.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Call async methods, but don't await them until needed.
Task<string> task1 = DoAsync();
Task<string> task2 = DoAsync();
Task<string> task3 = DoAsync();
// Do other stuff.
// Now, it is time to await the async methods to finish.
Task.WaitAll(task1, task2, task3);
// Do something with the results.
Console.WriteLine(task1.Result);
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static async Task<string> DoAsync()
{
Console.WriteLine("Started");
await Task.Delay(3000);
Console.WriteLine("Finished");
return "Success";
}
// Output:
// Started
// Started
// Started
// Finished
// Finished
// Finished
// Success

In the context of ASP.NET, why doesn't Task.Run(...).Result deadlock when calling an async method?

I created a simple WebApi project with a single controller and a single method:
public static class DoIt
{
public static async Task<string> GetStrAsync(Uri uri)
{
using (var client = new HttpClient())
{
var str = await client.GetStringAsync(uri);
return str;
}
}
}
public class TaskRunResultController : ApiController
{
public string Get()
{
var task = Task.Run(() =>
DoIt.GetStrAsync(new Uri("http://google.com"))
);
var result = task.Result;
return result;
}
}
I have a good understanding of async/await and tasks; almost religiously following Stephen Cleary. Just the existence of .Result makes me anxious, and I expect this to deadlock. I understand that the Task.Run(...) is wasteful, causing a thread to be occupied while waiting for the async DoIt() to finish.
The problem is this is not deadlocking, and it's giving me heart palpitations.
I see some answers like https://stackoverflow.com/a/32607091/1801382, and I've also observed that SynchronizationContext.Current is null when the lambda is executing. However, there are similar questions to mine asking why the above code does deadlock, and I've seen deadlocks occur in cases where ConfigureAwait(false) is used (not capturing the context) in conjunction with .Result.
What gives?

Result by itself isn't going to cause a deadlock. A deadlock is when two parts of the code are both waiting for each other. A Result is just one wait, so it can be part of a deadlock, but it doesn't necessarily always cause a deadlock.
In the standard example, the Result waits for the task to complete while holding onto the context, but the task can't complete because it's waiting for the context to be free. So there's a deadlock - they're waiting for each other.
ASP.NET Core does not have a context at all, so Result won't deadlock there. (It's still not a good idea for other reasons, but it won't deadlock).
The problem is this is not deadlocking, and it's giving me heart palpitations.
This is because the Task.Run task does not require the context to complete. So calling Task.Run(...).Result is safe. The Result is waiting for the task to complete, and it is holding onto the context (preventing any other parts of the request from executing in that context), but that's OK because the Task.Run task doesn't need the context at all.
Task.Run is still not a good idea in general on ASP.NET (for other reasons), but this is a perfectly valid technique that is useful from time to time. It won't ever deadlock, because the Task.Run task doesn't need the context.
However, there are similar questions to mine asking why the above code does deadlock,
Similar but not exact. Take a careful look at each code statement in those questions and ask yourself what context it runs on.
and I've seen deadlocks occur in cases where ConfigureAwait(false) is used (not capturing the context) in conjunction with .Result.
The Result/context deadlock is a very common one - probably the most common one. But it's not the only deadlock scenario out there.
Here's an example of a much more difficult deadlock that can show up if you block within async code (without a context). This kind of scenario is much more rare, though.

I'll give you as short answer the other way around: how to produce a deadlock:
Lets start in a Click handler that is executing synchronous and offloading some async call to a separate Task, then waiting for the result
private void MenuItem_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
var t = Task.Run(() => DeadlockProducer(sender as MenuItem));
var result = t.Result;
}
private async Task<int> DeadlockProducer(MenuItem sender)
{
await Task.Delay(1);
Dispatcher.Invoke(() => sender.Header = "Life sucks");
return 0;
}
The async method is doing another bad thing: it tries to bring some UI change synchronously, but the UI thread is still waiting for the task result...
So basically, Task.Run is half way out and will work for a lot of well formed async code, but there are ways to break it, so its not a reliable solution.
This sample code was written in context of WPF, but I guess ASP.Net could be abused to produce similar behavior.

Difference in task processing

Let's suppose that I Have two methods, like this...
public void MyMethod()
{
// do some stuff
}
public Task MyMethodAsync()
{
//run MyMethod asynchronously
}
What is the best form to execute it in async way?
Like this
public Task MyMethodAsync()
{
return Task.Run(() => MyMethod());
}
or like this?
public async Task MyMethodAsync()
{
await Task.Run(() => MyMethod());
}

You should read Stephen Cleary's tutorial on when -- and when not -- to use Task.Run.
Short answer: don't use Task.Run to create a fake async method. If your code isn't truly async, then let the caller decide if it should use a thread (or whatever) to call your code.

In the case of your first method, you may as well just have a task on a separate thread. It's not really async because you aren't clearly waiting for the thread to end to start a new process. If you called this it would continue before the task was complete.
public Task MyMethodAsync()
{
return Task.Run(() => MyMethod());
}
Looking at the second version. You are waiting for the task to complete so that you can do something after without holding up the current thread.
public async Task MyMethodAsync()
{
await Task.Run(() => MyMethod());
DoMoreWork();
//Do something following the completion of the task
//without binding up the calling thread, but actually complete it on that thread.
}

It's better to go the other way around. Build the inner task as async, and then let all the callers who can't use the async method use the async one internally and wait on it.
public void MyMethod()
{
MyMethodAsync().Wait();
}
public async Task MyMethodAsync()
{
// do some stuff
}
Both of your methods aren't truly making anything async. Async isn't about running something in the background, that's the realm of the Task library (or parallel extensions, or threading, etc). Async is about being able to re-use a single thread for multiple things when it has nothing better to do -- which makes thing more scalable. Making a pseudo-async method is just hiding the fact that you are using a NEW thread instead of reusing the same thread, which makes the system LESS scalable.
In order to do that, true async processes need to be written that way from the inside out. Everything (or at least the parts that are time consuming) need to rely on async methods that do that. For example, making a SOAP call where the thread is going to basically just sit idle while waiting for the call to return, or a database call, or file I/O. Async allows that thread to go do something else useful instead of just sitting idle.

Synchronous I/O within an async/await-based Windows Service

Let's say I have a Windows Service which is doing some bit of work, then sleeping for a short amount of time, over and over forever (until the service is shut down). So in the service's OnStart, I could start up a thread whose entry point is something like:
private void WorkerThreadFunc()
{
while (!shuttingDown)
{
DoSomething();
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
}
And in the service's OnStop, I somehow set that shuttingDown flag and then join the thread. Actually there might be several such threads, and other threads too, all started in OnStart and shut down/joined in OnStop.
If I want to instead do this sort of thing in an async/await based Windows Service, it seems like I could have OnStart create cancelable tasks but not await (or wait) on them, and have OnStop cancel those tasks and then Task.WhenAll().Wait() on them. If I understand correctly, the equivalent of the "WorkerThreadFunc" shown above might be something like:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
cancel.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
DoSomething();
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Question #1: Uh... right? I am new to async/await and still trying to get my head around it.
Assuming that's right, now let's say that DoSomething() call is (or includes) a synchronous write I/O to some piece of hardware. If I'm understanding correctly:
Question #2: That is bad? I shouldn't be doing synchronous I/O within a Task in an async/await-based program? Because it ties up a thread from the thread pool while the I/O is happening, and threads from the thread pool are a highly limited resource? Please note that I might have dozens of such Workers going simultaneously to different pieces of hardware.
I am not sure I'm understanding that correctly - I am getting the idea that it's bad from articles like Stephen Cleary's "Task.Run Etiquette Examples: Don't Use Task.Run for the Wrong Thing", but that's specifically about it being bad to do blocking work within Task.Run. I'm not sure if it's also bad if I'm just doing it directly, as in the "private async Task Work()" example above?
Assuming that's bad too, then if I understand correctly I should instead utilize the nonblocking version of DoSomething (creating a nonblocking version of it if it doesn't already exist), and then:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
cancel.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
await DoSomethingAsync(cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Question #3: But... what if DoSomething is from a third party library, which I must use and cannot alter, and that library doesn't expose a nonblocking version of DoSomething? It's just a black box set in stone that at some point does a blocking write to a piece of hardware.
Maybe I wrap it and use TaskCompletionSource? Something like:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
cancel.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
await WrappedDoSomething().ConfigureAwait(false);
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
private Task WrappedDoSomething()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
DoSomething();
tcs.SetResult(null);
return tcs.Task;
}
But that seems like it's just pushing the issue down a bit further rather than resolving it. WorkAsync() will still block when it calls WrappedDoSomething(), and only get to the "await" for that after WrappedDoSomething() has already completed the blocking work. Right?
Given that (if I understand correctly) in the general case async/await should be allowed to "spread" all the way up and down in a program, would this mean that if I need to use such a library, I essentially should not make the program async/await-based? I should go back to the Thread/WorkerThreadFunc/Thread.Sleep world?
What if an async/await-based program already exists, doing other things, but now additional functionality that uses such a library needs to be added to it? Does that mean that the async/await-based program should be rewritten as a Thread/etc.-based program?

Actually there might be several such threads, and other threads too, all started in OnStart and shut down/joined in OnStop.
On a side note, it's usually simpler to have a single "master" thread that will start/join all the others. Then OnStart/OnStop just deals with the master thread.
If I want to instead do this sort of thing in an async/await based Windows Service, it seems like I could have OnStart create cancelable tasks but not await (or wait) on them, and have OnStop cancel those tasks and then Task.WhenAll().Wait() on them.
That's a perfectly acceptable approach.
If I understand correctly, the equivalent of the "WorkerThreadFunc" shown above might be something like:
Probably want to pass the CancellationToken down; cancellation can be used by synchronous code, too:
private async Task WorkAsync(CancellationToken cancel)
{
while (true)
{
DoSomething(cancel);
await Task.Delay(10, cancel).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
}
Question #1: Uh... right? I am new to async/await and still trying to get my head around it.
It's not wrong, but it only saves you one thread on a Win32 service, which doesn't do much for you.
Question #2: That is bad? I shouldn't be doing synchronous I/O within a Task in an async/await-based program? Because it ties up a thread from the thread pool while the I/O is happening, and threads from the thread pool are a highly limited resource? Please note that I might have dozens of such Workers going simultaneously to different pieces of hardware.
Dozens of threads are not a lot. Generally, asynchronous I/O is better because it doesn't use any threads at all, but in this case you're on the desktop, so threads are not a highly limited resource. async is most beneficial on UI apps (where the UI thread is special and needs to be freed), and ASP.NET apps that need to scale (where the thread pool limits scalability).
Bottom line: calling a blocking method from an asynchronous method is not bad but it's not the best, either. If there is an asynchronous method, call that instead. But if there isn't, then just keep the blocking call and document it in the XML comments for that method (because an asynchronous method blocking is rather surprising behavior).
I am getting the idea that it's bad from articles like Stephen Cleary's "Task.Run Etiquette Examples: Don't Use Task.Run for the Wrong Thing", but that's specifically about it being bad to do blocking work within Task.Run.
Yes, that is specifically about using Task.Run to wrap synchronous methods and pretend they're asynchronous. It's a common mistake; all it does is trade one thread pool thread for another.
Assuming that's bad too, then if I understand correctly I should instead utilize the nonblocking version of DoSomething (creating a nonblocking version of it if it doesn't already exist)
Asynchronous is better (in terms of resource utilization - that is, fewer threads used), so if you want/need to reduce the number of threads, you should use async.
Question #3: But... what if DoSomething is from a third party library, which I must use and cannot alter, and that library doesn't expose a nonblocking version of DoSomething? It's just a black box set in stone that at some point does a blocking write to a piece of hardware.
Then just call it directly.
Maybe I wrap it and use TaskCompletionSource?
No, that doesn't do anything useful. That just calls it synchronously and then returns an already-completed task.
But that seems like it's just pushing the issue down a bit further rather than resolving it. WorkAsync() will still block when it calls WrappedDoSomething(), and only get to the "await" for that after WrappedDoSomething() has already completed the blocking work. Right?
Yup.
Given that (if I understand correctly) in the general case async/await should be allowed to "spread" all the way up and down in a program, would this mean that if I need to use such a library, I essentially should not make the program async/await-based? I should go back to the Thread/WorkerThreadFunc/Thread.Sleep world?
Assuming you already have a blocking Win32 service, it's probably fine to just keep it as it is. If you are writing a new one, personally I would make it async to reduce threads and allow asynchronous APIs, but you don't have to do it either way. I prefer Tasks over Threads in general, since it's much easier to get results from Tasks (including exceptions).
The "async all the way" rule only goes one way. That is, once you call an async method, then its caller should be async, and its caller should be async, etc. It does not mean that every method called by an async method must be async.
So, one good reason to have an async Win32 service would be if there's an async-only API you need to consume. That would cause your DoSomething method to become async DoSomethingAsync.
What if an async/await-based program already exists, doing other things, but now additional functionality that uses such a library needs to be added to it? Does that mean that the async/await-based program should be rewritten as a Thread/etc.-based program?
No. You can always just block from an async method. With proper documentation so when you are reusing/maintaining this code a year from now, you don't swear at your past self. :)

If you still spawn your threads, well, yes, it's bad. Because it will not give you any benefit as the thread is still allocated and consuming resources for the specific purpose of running your worker function. Running a few threads to be able to do work in parallel within a service has a minimal impact on your application.
If DoSomething() is synchronous, you could switch to the Timer class instead. It allows multiple timers to use a smaller amount of threads.
If it's important that the jobs can complete, you can modify your worker classes like this:
SemaphoreSlim _shutdownEvent = new SemaphoreSlim(0,1);
public async Task Stop()
{
return await _shutdownEvent.WaitAsync();
}
private void WorkerThreadFunc()
{
while (!shuttingDown)
{
DoSomething();
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
_shutdownEvent.Release();
}
.. which means that during shutdown you can do this:
var tasks = myServices.Select(x=> x.Stop());
Task.WaitAll(tasks);

A thread can only do one thing at a time. While it is working on your DoSomething it can't do anything else.
In an interview Eric Lippert described async-await in a restaurant metaphor. He suggests to use async-await only for functionality where your thread can do other things instead of waiting for a process to complete, like respond to operator input.
Alas, your thread is not waiting, it is doing hard work in DoSomething. And as long as DoSomething is not awaiting, your thread will not return from DoSomething to do the next thing.
So if your thread has something meaningful to do while procedure DoSomething is executing, it's wise to let another thread do the DoSomething, while your original thread is doing the meaningful stuff. Task.Run( () => DoSomething()) could do this for you. As long as the thread that called Task.Run doesn't await for this task, it is free to do other things.
You also want to cancel your process. DoSomething can't be cancelled. So even if cancellation is requested you'll have to wait until DoSomething is completed.
Below is your DoSomething in a form with a Start button and a Cancel button. While your thread is DoingSomething, one of the meaningful things your GUI thread may want to do is respond to pressing the cancel button:
void CancellableDoSomething(CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
DoSomething()
}
}
async Task DoSomethingAsync(CancellationToken token)
{
var task = Task.Run(CancellableDoSomething(token), token);
// if you have something meaningful to do, do it now, otherwise:
return Task;
}
CancellationTokenSource cancellationTokenSource = null;
private async void OnButtonStartSomething_Clicked(object sender, ...)
{
if (cancellationTokenSource != null)
// already doing something
return
// else: not doing something: start doing something
cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationtokenSource()
var task = AwaitDoSomethingAsync(cancellationTokenSource.Token);
// if you have something meaningful to do, do it now, otherwise:
await task;
cancellationTokenSource.Dispose();
cancellationTokenSource = null;
}
private void OnButtonCancelSomething(object sender, ...)
{
if (cancellationTokenSource == null)
// not doing something, nothing to cancel
return;
// else: cancel doing something
cancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
}

HttpClient.PostAsync hanging Windows Phone app [duplicate]

I don't quite understand the difference between Task.Wait and await.
I have something similar to the following functions in a ASP.NET WebAPI service:
public class TestController : ApiController
{
public static async Task<string> Foo()
{
await Task.Delay(1).ConfigureAwait(false);
return "";
}
public async static Task<string> Bar()
{
return await Foo();
}
public async static Task<string> Ros()
{
return await Bar();
}
// GET api/test
public IEnumerable<string> Get()
{
Task.WaitAll(Enumerable.Range(0, 10).Select(x => Ros()).ToArray());
return new string[] { "value1", "value2" }; // This will never execute
}
}
Where Get will deadlock.
What could cause this? Why doesn't this cause a problem when I use a blocking wait rather than await Task.Delay?

Wait and await - while similar conceptually - are actually completely different.
Wait will synchronously block until the task completes. So the current thread is literally blocked waiting for the task to complete. As a general rule, you should use "async all the way down"; that is, don't block on async code. On my blog, I go into the details of how blocking in asynchronous code causes deadlock.
await will asynchronously wait until the task completes. This means the current method is "paused" (its state is captured) and the method returns an incomplete task to its caller. Later, when the await expression completes, the remainder of the method is scheduled as a continuation.
You also mentioned a "cooperative block", by which I assume you mean a task that you're Waiting on may execute on the waiting thread. There are situations where this can happen, but it's an optimization. There are many situations where it can't happen, like if the task is for another scheduler, or if it's already started or if it's a non-code task (such as in your code example: Wait cannot execute the Delay task inline because there's no code for it).
You may find my async / await intro helpful.

Based on what I read from different sources:
An await expression does not block the thread on which it is executing. Instead, it causes the compiler to sign up the rest of the async method as a continuation on the awaited task. Control then returns to the caller of the async method. When the task completes, it invokes its continuation, and execution of the async method resumes where it left off.
To wait for a single task to complete, you can call its Task.Wait method. A call to the Wait method blocks the calling thread until the single class instance has completed execution. The parameterless Wait() method is used to wait unconditionally until a task completes. The task simulates work by calling the Thread.Sleep method to sleep for two seconds.
This article is also a good read.

Some important facts were not given in other answers:
async/await is more complex at CIL level and thus costs memory and CPU time.
Any task can be canceled if the waiting time is unacceptable.
In the case of async/await we do not have a handler for such a task to cancel it or monitoring it.
Using Task is more flexible than async/await.
Any sync functionality can by wrapped by async.
public async Task<ActionResult> DoAsync(long id)
{
return await Task.Run(() => { return DoSync(id); } );
}
async/await generate many problems. We do not know if await statement will be reached without runtime and context debugging. If first await is not reached, everything is blocked. Sometimes even when await seems to be reached, still everything is blocked:
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/36063
I do not see why I must live with the code duplication for sync and async method or using hacks.
Conclusion: Creating Tasks manually and controlling them is much better. Handler to Task gives more control. We can monitor Tasks and manage them:
https://github.com/lsmolinski/MonitoredQueueBackgroundWorkItem
Sorry for my english.