We Keep Coding

Chain tasks using continuation task

I'm trying to chain tasks, so as soon as the one finishes the next starts, but the UI doesn't update. I did a course in react and the one lesson is where you update the UI based on state changes in the application, and that is what I'm trying to replicate. Change the state of the application (basically I'll be running methods that run return a bool for validation), and then update the UI accordingly, I'm also using binding, but for some reason its not running as intended, I don't know if I follow the documentation incorrectly. What can I change or fix to make this work and is it practically correct to use more than one task in a single async Task<T> method
public async Task<string> Connect_To_Ip()
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
details.State = "Connection To IP 127.0.01.258.....";
Task.Delay(5000).Wait();
}).ContinueWith(result => new Task(async () =>
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
if (result.Status == TaskStatus.RanToCompletion)
{
details.State = "Validating Card Number......";
}
});
}), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
return details.State;
}
How I'm calling the original task
Task connect = Connect_To_Ip();
await connect;

When you use await then you don't need Task.ContinueWith. Everything that follows the awaited operation is a continuation. Since you want to validate on a background thread, you must post the changes back to the UI thread in order to update the UI elements, otherwise you will produce cross-thread exceptions.
This is because UI elements can't be updated from a background thread, except the update occurs via INotifyPropertyChanged and data binding.
One way to do this is to use the Dispatcher to invoke UI manipulations on the UI thread or use the Progress<T> class, which will always execute the registered callback on the UI thread.
Your fixed and simplified code could look like this example:
public async Task ValidateAsync()
{
// Register the callback that updates the UI with the 'progressReporter'.
// Progress<T> must be instantiated on the UI thread it is associated with
var progressReporter = new Progress<string>(message => details.State = message);
// Execute the operation on a background thread
await Task.Run(() => ConnectToIp(progressReporter));
// Continuation starts here, after await
}
public async Task ConnectToIp(IProgress<string> progressReporter)
{
progressReporter.Report("Connection To IP 127.0.01.258.....");
await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
// Continuation starts here, after await
progressReporter.Report("Validating Card Number......");
}
It is recommended to use async APIs when possible instead of using background threads. For example, to connect to a server without blocking the UI you can use
HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
HttpResponseMessage response = await client.GetAsync("http://www.contoso.com/");
Many IO classes provide an async API.
Furthermore, I recommend to take a look at the INotifyDataErrorInfo interface. It is the recommended way to implement property validation and allows to provide UI error feedback in a very easy way.

I did this in Windows Forms (I had a test Windows Forms project open), but it should be about the same in WPF. I dropped a button, a label and a text box on the form. Then I wrote this code:
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var result = await ValidateTextBox();
if (result != null)
{
label1.Text = result;
return;
}
var intResult = await ReadTextBox();
label1.Text = intResult.ToString();
await IncrementTextBox();
intResult = await ReadTextBox();
label1.Text = intResult.ToString();
}
private async Task<string> ValidateTextBox()
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
if (!int.TryParse(textBox1.Text, out _)) {
return "Not Valid";
}
//otherwise
return null;
}
private async Task<int> ReadTextBox()
{
await Task.Delay(3000);
if (!int.TryParse(textBox1.Text, out var result))
{
throw new Exception("Don't do that");
}
return result;
}
private async Task IncrementTextBox()
{
await Task.Delay(3000);
if (!int.TryParse(textBox1.Text, out var result))
{
throw new Exception("Don't do that");
}
textBox1.Text = (result + 1).ToString();
}
If you type something that's not an int into the text box and press the button, a few seconds go by, and then Not Valid shows up in the label.
If there is a number there, then there is a pause and the number shows up in the label. Then another pause and the text box number will increment by 1. Finally after another pause, the label will show the incremented value.
Note that this all runs on a single thread. But, in spite of all the delays, the UI remains responsive the whole time.
Put breakpoints at the start of each function and on the lines after each of the awaits in the button click handler. Step through (not into) the whole thing and you'll see how the awaits create continuations

Using IProgress when reporting progress for async await code vs progress bar control

private static async Task FuncAsync(DataTable dt, DataRow dr)
{
try
{
await Task.Delay(3000); //assume this is an async http post request that takes 3 seconds to respond
Thread.Sleep(1000) //assume this is some synchronous code that takes 2 second
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000); //assume this is synchronous code that takes 1 second
}
}
private async void Button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
List<Task> lstTasks = new List<Task>();
DataTable dt = (DataTable)gridview1.DataSource;
foreach (DataRow dr in dt.Rows)
{
lstTasks.Add(FuncAsync(dr["colname"].ToString());
}
while (lstTasks.Any())
{
Task finishedTask = await Task.WhenAny(lstTasks);
lstTasks.Remove(finishedTask);
await finishedTask;
progressbar1.ReportProgress();
}
}
Assuming the datatable has got 10000 rows.
In the code, on button click, at the 1st iteration of the for loop, an async api request is made. While it takes 3 seconds, the control immediately goes to the caller. So the for loop can make the next iteration, and so on.
When the api response arrives, the code below the await runs as a callback. Thus blocking the UI thread and any incomplete for loop iterations will be delayed until the callback completes irrespective of whether I use await WhenAny or WhenAll.
All code runs on the UI thread due to the presence of synchronization context. I can do ConfigureAwait false on Task.Delay so the callbacks run on separate threads in order to unblock the ui thread.
Say 1000 iterations are made when the 1st await returns and when the 1st iterations await call back runs the following iterations will have completed completed awaits so their callbacks will run. Effectively callbacks will run one after the other if configure await is true. If false then they will run in parallel on separate threads.
So I think that the progress bar that I am updating in the while loop is incorrect because - by the time the code reaches the while block, most of the initial for loop iterations will have been already completed. I hope that I have understood correctly so far.
I have the following options to report progress from inside the task:
using IProgress (I think this is more suitable to report progress from another thread [for example when using Task.Run], or in usual async await if the configure await is false, resulting in code below the await to run in separate thread otherwise it will not show the progress bar moving as the ui thread will be blocked running the callbacks. In my current example code always runs on the same UI thread). So I was thinking the below point may be more appropriate solution.
making the Task non-static so that I can access the progress bar from within the Task and do porgressbar1.PerformStep().
Another thing I have noticed is that await WhenAll doesn't guarantee that IProgress is fully executed.

The IProgress<T> implementation offered natively by the .NET platform, the Progress<T> class, has the interesting characteristic of notifying the captured SynchronizationContext asynchronously, by invoking its Post method. This characteristic sometimes results to unexpected behavior. For example can you guess what effect has the code below to the Label1 control?
IProgress<string> progress = new Progress<string>(s => Label1.Text = s);
progress.Report("Hello");
Label1.Text = "World";
What text will be eventually written to the label, "Hello" or "World"? The correct answer is: "Hello". The delegate s => Label1.Text = s is invoked asynchronously, so it runs after the execution of the Label1.Text = "World" line, which is invoked synchronously.
Implementing a synchronous version of the Progress<T> class is quite trivial. All you have to do is copy-paste Microsoft's source code, rename the class from Progress<T> to SynchronousProgress<T>, and change the line m_synchronizationContext.Post(... to m_synchronizationContext.Send(.... This way every time you invoke the progress.Report method, the call will block until the invocation of the delegate on the UI thread is completed. The unfortunate implication of this is that if the UI thread is blocked for some reason, for example because you used the .Wait() or the .Result to wait synchronously for the task to complete, your application will deadlock.
The asynchronous nature of the Progress<T> class is rarely a problem in practice, but if you want to avoid thinking about it you can just manipulate the ProgressBar1 control directly. After all you are not writing a library, you are just writing code in the event handler of a button to make some HTTP requests. My suggestion is to forget about the .ConfigureAwait(false) hackery, and just let the main workflow of your asynchronous event handler to stay on the UI thread from start to end. If you have synchronous blocking code that needs to be offloaded to a ThreadPool thread, use the Task.Run method to offload it. To create your tasks, instead of manually adding tasks to a List<Task>, use the handly LINQ Select operator to project each DataRow to a Task. Also add a reference to the System.Data.DataSetExtensions assembly, so that the DataTable.AsEnumerable extension method becomes available. Finally add a throttler (a SemaphoreSlim), so that your application makes efficient use of the available network bandwidth, and it doesn't overburden the target machine:
private async void Button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Button1.Enabled = false;
const int maximumConcurrency = 10;
var throttler = new SemaphoreSlim(maximumConcurrency, maximumConcurrency);
DataTable dataTable = (DataTable)GridView1.DataSource;
ProgressBar1.Minimum = 0;
ProgressBar1.Maximum = dataTable.Rows.Count;
ProgressBar1.Step = 1;
ProgressBar1.Value = 0;
Task[] tasks = dataTable.AsEnumerable().Select(async row =>
{
await throttler.WaitAsync();
try
{
await Task.Delay(3000); // Simulate an asynchronous HTTP request
await Task.Run(() => Thread.Sleep(2000)); // Simulate synchronous code
}
catch
{
await Task.Run(() => Thread.Sleep(1000)); // Simulate synchronous code
}
finally
{
throttler.Release();
}
ProgressBar1.PerformStep();
}).ToArray();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
Button1.Enabled = true;
}

You can simply add a wrapper function:
private IProgress<double> _progress;
private int _jobsFinished = 0;
private int _totalJobs = 1000;
private static async Task FuncAsync()
{
try
{
await Task.Delay(3000); //assume this is an async http post request that takes 3 seconds to respond
Thread.Sleep(1000); //assume this is some synchronous code that takes 2 second
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000); //assume this is synchronous code that takes 1 second
}
}
private async Task AwaitAndUpdateProgress()
{
await FuncAsync(); // Can also do Task.Run(FuncAsync) to run on a worker thread
_jobsFinished++;
_progress.Report((double) _jobsFinished / _totalJobs);
}
And then just WhenAll after adding all the calls.

Lazy<Task<T>> with asynchronous initialization

class Laziness
{
static string cmdText = null;
static SqlConnection conn = null;
Lazy<Task<Person>> person =
new Lazy<Task<Person>>(async () =>
{
using (var cmd = new SqlCommand(cmdText, conn))
using (var reader = await cmd.ExecuteReaderAsync())
{
if (await reader.ReadAsync())
{
string firstName = reader["first_name"].ToString();
string lastName = reader["last_name"].ToString();
return new Person(firstName, lastName);
}
}
throw new Exception("Failed to fetch Person");
});
public async Task<Person> FetchPerson()
{
return await person.Value;
}
}
And the book, "Concurrency in .NET" by Riccardo Terrell, June 2018, says:
But there's a subtle risk. Because Lambda expression is asynchronous,
it can be executed on any thread that calls Value and the expression
will run within the context. A better solution is to wrap the
expression in an underlying Task which will force the asynchronous
execution on a thread pool thread.
I don't see what's the risk from the current code ?
Is it to prevent deadlock in case the code is run on the UI thread and is explicity waited like that:
new Laziness().FetchPerson().Wait();

I don't see what's the risk from the current code ?
To me, the primary issue is that the asynchronous initialization delegate doesn't know what context/thread it'll run on, and that the context/thread could be different based on a race condition. For example, if a UI thread and a thread pool thread both attempt to access Value at the same time, in some executions the delegate will be run in a UI context and in others it will be run in a thread pool context. In the ASP.NET (pre-Core) world, it can get a bit trickier: it's possible for the delegate to capture a request context for a request that is then canceled (and disposed), and attempt to resume on that context, which isn't pretty.
Most of the time, it wouldn't matter. But there are these cases where Bad Things can happen. Introducing a Task.Run just removes this uncertainty: the delegate will always run without a context on a thread pool thread.

I simplified your example to show what happens in each case. In the first case the Task is created using an async lambda:
Lazy<Task<string>> myLazy = new Lazy<Task<string>>(async () =>
{
string result = $"Before Delay: #{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}";
await Task.Delay(100);
return result += $", After Delay: #{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}";
});
private async void Button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int t1 = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId;
var result = await myLazy.Value;
int t2 = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId;
MessageBox.Show($"Before await: #{t1}, {result}, After await: #{t2}");
}
I embedded this code in a new Windows Forms application with a single button, and on clicking the button this message popped up:
Before await: #1, Before Delay: #1, After Delay: #1, After await: #1
Then I changed the valueFactory argument to use Task.Run instead:
Lazy<Task<string>> myLazy = new Lazy<Task<string>>(() => Task.Run(async () =>
{
string result = $"Before Delay: #{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}";
await Task.Delay(100);
return result += $", After Delay: #{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}";
}));
Now the message is this:
Before await: #1, Before Delay: #3, After Delay: #4, After await: #1
So not using Task.Run means that your code before, between and after the awaits will run on the UI thread. Which might not be a big deal, unless there is CPU intensive or IO blocking code hidden somewhere. For example the constructor of the Person class, as innocent as it might look, could contain some call to a database or web API. By using Task.Run you can be sure that the initialization of the Lazy class will not touch the UI thread before it's done.

How to stop a thread if thread takes too long

I have a situation that i export data to a file and what i have been asked to do is to provide a cancel button which on click will stop the export if it takes too much time to export.
I started exporting to the file in a thread. And i try to abort the thread on the button click. But it do not work.
I searched on Google and i found that abort() is not recommended. But what else should I choose to achieve it?
My current code is:
private void ExportButtonClick(object param)
{
IList<Ur1R2_Time_Points> data = ct.T_UR.ToList();
DataTable dtData = ExportHelper.ToDataTable(data);
thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(()=>ExportHelper.DataTableToCsv(dtData, "ExportFile.csv")));
thread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Name = "PDF";
thread.Start();
}
private void StopButtonClick(object param)
{
if (thread.Name == "PDF")
{
thread.Interrupt();
thread.Abort();
}
}

Aborting a thread is a bad idea, especially when dealing with files. You won't have a chance to clean up half-written files or clean-up inconsistent state.
It won't harm the .NET Runtime bat it can hurt your own application eg if the worker method leaves global state, files or database records in an inconsistent state.
It's always preferable to use cooperative cancellation - the thread periodically checks a coordination construct like a ManualResetEvent or CancellationToken. You can't use a simple variable like a Boolean flag, as this can lead to race conditions, eg if two or more threads try to set it at the same time.
You can read about cancellation in .NET in the Cancellation in Managed Threads section of MSDN.
The CancellationToken/CancellationTokenSource classes were added in .NET 4 to make cancellation easier that passing around events.
In your case, you should modify your DataTableToCsv to accept a CancellationToken. That token is generated by a CancellationTokenSource class.
When you call CancellationTokenSource.Cancel the token's IsCancellationRequested property becomes true. Your DataTableToCsv method should check this flag periodically. If it's set, it should exit any loops, delete any inconsistent files etc.
Timeouts are directly supported with CancelAfter. Essentially, CancelAfter starts a timer that will fire Cancel when it expires.
Your code could look like this:
CancellationTokenSource _exportCts = null;
private void ExportButtonClick(object param)
{
IList<Ur1R2_Time_Points> data = ct.T_UR.ToList();
DataTable dtData = ExportHelper.ToDataTable(data);
_exportCts=new CancellationTokenSource();
var token=_exportCts.Token;
thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(()=>
ExportHelper.DataTableToCsv(dtData, "ExportFile.csv",token)));
thread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Name = "PDF";
_exportCts.CancelAfter(10000);
thread.Start();
}
private void StopButtonClick(object param)
{
if (_exportCts!=null)
{
_exportCts.Cancel();
}
}
DataTableToCsv should contain code similar to this:
foreach(var row in myTable)
{
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
break;
}
//else continue with processing
var line=String.Join(",", row.ItemArray);
writer.WriteLine(line);
}
You can clean up your code quite a bit by using tasks instead of raw threads:
private async void ExportButtonClick(object param)
{
IList<Ur1R2_Time_Points> data = ct.T_UR.ToList();
DataTable dtData = ExportHelper.ToDataTable(data);
_exportCts=new CancellationTokenSource();
var token=_exportCts.Token;
_exportCts.CancelAfter(10000);
await Task.Run(()=> ExportHelper.DataTableToCsv(dtData, "ExportFile.csv",token)));
MessageBox.Show("Finished");
}
You could also speed it up by using asynchronous operations, eg to read data from the database or write to text files without blocking or using threads. Windows IO (both file and network) is asynchronous at the driver level. Methods like File.WriteLineAsync don't use threads to write to a file.
Your Export button handler could become :
private void ExportButtonClick(object param)
{
IList<Ur1R2_Time_Points> data = ct.T_UR.ToList();
DataTable dtData = ExportHelper.ToDataTable(data);
_exportCts=new CancellationTokenSource();
var token=_exportCts.Token;
_exportCts.CancelAfter(10000);
await Task.Run(async ()=> ExportHelper.DataTableToCsv(dtData, "ExportFile.csv",token)));
MessageBox.Show("Finished");
}
and DataTableToCsv :
public async Task DataTableToCsv(DataTable table, string file,CancellationToken token)
{
...
foreach(var row in myTable)
{
if (token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
break;
}
//else continue with processing
var line=String.Join(",", row.ItemArray);
await writer.WriteLineAsync(line);
}

You can use a boolean flag. Use a volatile boolean for that.
In the helper do something like:
this.aborted = false;
while(!finished && !aborted) {
//process one row
}
Whenever you want to cancel the operation, you call a method to set aborted to true:
public void Abort() {
this.aborted = true;
}

Have a read here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.threadabortexception(v=vs.110).aspx
When a call is made to the Abort method to destroy a thread, the common language runtime throws a ThreadAbortException. ThreadAbortException is a special exception that can be caught, but it will automatically be raised again at the end of the catch block. When this exception is raised, the runtime executes all the finally blocks before ending the thread. Because the thread can do an unbounded computation in the finally blocks or call Thread.ResetAbort to cancel the abort, there is no guarantee that the thread will ever end. If you want to wait until the aborted thread has ended, you can call the Thread.Join method. Join is a blocking call that does not return until the thread actually stops executing.
Since Thread.Abort() is executed by another thread, it can happen anytime and when it happens ThreadAbortException is thrown on target thread.
Inside ExportHelper.DataTableToCsv:
catch(ThreadAbortException e) {
Thread.ResetAbort();
}
On StopButtonClick
if (thread.Name == "PDF")
{
thread.Interrupt();
thread.Join();
}

To Stop a thread you have one option of Thread.Abort.However because this method thrown ThreadAbortException on the target thread when it executed by another thead.
Which is not recommended.
The second option to stop a thread is by using shared variable that both your target and your calling thread can access.
See the Example ::
public static class Program
{
public static void ThreadMethod(object o)
{
for (int i = 0; i < (int)o; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("ThreadProc: { 0}", i);
Thread.Sleep(0);
}
}
public static void Main()
{
bool stopped = false;
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(() =>
{
while (!stopped)
{
Console.WriteLine("Running...");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}));
t.Start();
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit");
Console.ReadKey();
stopped = true;
t.Join();
}
}
//Source :: Book --> Programming in c#

WPF async await Task Locks UI Thread Running Tasks in Parallel

I have a WPF app which, upon button click, creates a List<Task<int>> and starts these tasks. My assumption is that the Add() call starts these in parallel, but async.
This is my function that does a bunch of WMI calls in serial on a remote machine:
AgentBootstrapper.cs
public async Task<int> BootstrapAsync(BootstrapContext context, IProgress<BootstrapAsyncProgress> progress)
{
...
do a bunch of stuff in serial *without* await calls
...
if (progress != null)
{
progress.Report(new BootstrapAsyncProgress
{
MachineName = context.MachineName,
ProgressPercentage = 30,
Text = "Copying install agent software to \\\\" + context.MachineName + "\\" + context.ShareName
});
}
...
return pid; // ProcessId of the remote agent that was just started
}
And this is obviously my button handler in the UI:
Shell.xaml.cs
private async void InstallButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
var bootstrapTasks = new List<Task<int>>();
var progress = new Progress<BootstrapAsyncProgress>();
progress.ProgressChanged += (o, asyncProgress) =>
{
Debug.WriteLine("{0}: {1}% {2}", asyncProgress.MachineName, asyncProgress.ProgressPercentage,
asyncProgress.Text);
//TODO Update ViewModel property for ProgressPercentage
};
var vm = DataContext as ShellViewModel;
Debug.Assert(vm != null);
foreach (var targetMachine in vm.TargetMachines)
{
var bootstrapContext = new BootstrapContext(targetMachine.MachineName, true)
{
AdminUser = vm.AdminUser,
AdminPassword = vm.AdminPassword
};
var bootstrapper = new AgentBootstrapper(bootstrapContext);
bootstrapTasks.Add(bootstrapper.BootstrapAsync(bootstrapContext, progress)); // UI thread locks up here
}
}
I know functions marked as async should have function calls within them using await. In my case, these are all calls to some synchronous WMi helper functions which all return void. So, I don't think await is what I want here.
Simply put, I want all the bootstrapTasks items (the calls to bootstrapper.BootstrapAsync() to fire at once, and have the UI thread receive progress events from all of them. When the whole lot are complete, I'll need to handle that too.
Update 1
Attempting to use Task.Run() fixes the UI locking issue, but only the first Task instance is executed. Update foreach loop:
foreach (var targetMachine in vm.TargetMachines)
{
var tm = targetMachine; // copy closure variable
var bootstrapContext = new BootstrapContext(tm.MachineName, true)
{
AdminUser = vm.AdminUser,
AdminPassword = vm.AdminPassword
};
var bootstrapper = new AgentBootstrapper(bootstrapContext);
Debug.WriteLine("Starting Bootstrap task on default thread pool...");
var task = Task.Run(() =>
{
var pid = bootstrapper.Bootstrap(bootstrapContext, progress);
return pid;
});
Debug.WriteLine("Adding Task<int> " + task.Id + " to List<Task<int>>.");
tasks.Add(task);
await Task.WhenAll(tasks); // Don't proceed with the rest of this function untill all tasks are complete
}
Update 2
Moving the await Task.WhenAll(tasks); outside the foreach loop allows all tasks to run in parallel.

Nothing in the code generated for async/await involves the creation of threads. Using the async keyword does not cause another thread to be used. All async does is allow you to use the await keyword. If you want something to happen on another thread, try using Task.Run.

Run the tasks on the thread pool (using the default task scheduler, that is) and await Task.WhenAll(bootstrapTasks) on them in your UI thread?