We Keep Coding

Why BackgroundWorker's Progress event runs on a different thread than it should?

I'm having problems with BackgroundWorker. It seems like it calls its Progress event in a different thread than it was created on, contrary to the documentation. First, for reference:
This is, when worker is being created:
This is, when worker is doing its job:
This is, when my code handles progress reported by the worker via ReportProgress:
Note, that the last thread is even different from the previous two (main and BW's worker thread)
The worker is created in App.xaml.cs indirectly:
public App()
{
Configuration.Configure(Container.Instance);
// (...)
// Configure core service
coreService = Container.Instance.Resolve<ICoreService>();
coreService.Init();
}
And then:
public CoreService(ITfsService tfsService, IConfigurationService configurationService, IMapper mapper, IDialogService dialogService)
{
this.tfsService = tfsService;
this.configurationService = configurationService;
this.dialogService = dialogService;
worker = new CoreWorker(tfsService, configurationService);
worker.ProgressChanged += HandleCoreWorkerProgress;
}
Worker gets executed in CoreService.Init():
public void Init()
{
tfsService.Connect();
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
Worker itself looks more less like this:
private class CoreWorker : BackgroundWorker
{
private const int CORE_WORKER_TIMEOUT = 1000;
private readonly ITfsService tfsService;
private readonly IConfigurationService configurationService;
// (...)
public CoreWorker(ITfsService tfsService, IConfigurationService configurationService)
{
this.tfsService = tfsService;
this.configurationService = configurationService;
this.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
this.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
}
protected override void OnDoWork(DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
while (true)
{
if (this.CancellationPending)
break;
if (EnsureTfsServiceUp())
{
(var startedBuilds, var succeededBuilds, var failedBuilds) = ProcessBuilds();
// Download and process builds
var buildResult = new BuildInfo(startedBuilds, succeededBuilds, failedBuilds);
ReportProgress(0, buildResult);
}
// Wait 1 minute
Thread.Sleep(CORE_WORKER_TIMEOUT);
}
}
}
Note, that interally I use async methods, but I wait for them explicitly (since I'm in a separate thread anyway):
(reachedSince, recentBuilds) = tfsService.GetBuilds(lastBuild.Value).Result;
runningBuilds = tfsService.GetBuilds(runningBuildIds).Result;
plannedBuilds = tfsService.GetBuilds(plannedBuildIds).Result;
Is there something I'm missing? Docs says, that progress handling should happen in the same thread as when BackgroundWorker was created. But it is not, and I'm obviously getting errors on the UI.
Application is WPF, however it works in background, doesn't have main window, most of its job is done in the CoreService and it displays windows only occasionally.
How can I fix that, so that ReportProgress will run in the main thread?
Update: I modified my code to use Tasks instead and used Progress<T> to process the progress:
notificationTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(async () => await ProcessNotifications(new Progress<BaseCoreNotification>(HandleNotificationProgress), notificationTaskCancellationSource),
notificationTaskCancellationSource.Token,
TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning,
TaskScheduler.Default).Unwrap();
Result is that the progress is still not processed in main thread.

I found the problem after switching to Tasks.
In that case, to report progress, I needed to use Progress<T>. This class is supposed to call the delegate in the thread it was constructed in, but in turn it just took a thread from the pool.
The reason was that initialization of my service (where Progress<T> was created) has been done in App ctor and it turs out, that there is no SynchronizationContext there (that is, SynchronizationContext.Current is null). In such case Progress<T> simply uses thread from pool and - most likely - BackgroundWorker does it too.
The Solution was to move initializaiton of my service to Application_Startup, where SynchronizationContext for main thread is already available.

Notify when thread is complete, without locking calling thread

I am working on a legacy application that is built on top of NET 3.5. This is a constraint that I can't change.
I need to execute a second thread to run a long running task without locking the UI. When the thread is complete, somehow I need to execute a Callback.
Right now I tried this pseudo-code:
Thread _thread = new Thread(myLongRunningTask) { IsBackground = True };
_tread.Start();
// wait until it's done
_thread.Join();
// execute finalizer
The second option, which does not lock the UI, is the following:
Thread _thread = new Thread(myLongRunningTask) { IsBackground = True };
_tread.Start();
// wait until it's done
while(_thread.IsAlive)
{
Application.DoEvents();
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
// execute finalizer
Of course the second solution is not good cause it overcharge the UI.
What is the correct way to execute a callback when a _thread is complete? Also, how do I know if the thread was cancelled or aborted?
*Note: * I can't use the BackgroundWorker and I can't use the Async library, I need to work with the native thread class.

There are two slightly different kinds of requirement here:
Execute a callback once the long-running task has completed
Execute a callback once the thread in which the long-running task was running has completed.
If you're happy with the first of these, the simplest approach is to create a compound task of "the original long-running task, and the callback", basically. You can even do this just using the way that multicast delegates work:
ThreadStart starter = myLongRunningTask;
starter += () => {
// Do what you want in the callback
};
Thread thread = new Thread(starter) { IsBackground = true };
thread.Start();
That's very vanilla, and the callback won't be fired if the thread is aborted or throws an exception. You could wrap it up in a class with either multiple callbacks, or a callback which specifies the status (aborted, threw an exception etc) and handles that by wrapping the original delegate, calling it in a method with a try/catch block and executing the callback appropriately.
Unless you take any special action, the callback will be executed in the background thread, so you'll need to use Control.BeginInvoke (or whatever) to marshal back to the UI thread.

I absolutely understand your requirements, but you've missed one crucial thing: do you really need to wait for the end of that thread synchronously? Or maybe you just need to execute the "finalizer" after thread's end is detected?
In the latter case, simply wrap the call to myLongRunningTask into another method:
void surrogateThreadRoutine() {
// try{ ..
mytask();
// finally { ..
..all 'finalization'.. or i.e. raising some Event that you'll handle elsewhere
}
and use it as the thread's routine. That way, you'll know that the finalization will occur at the thread's and, just after the end of the actual job.
However, of course, if you're with some UI or other schedulers, the "finalization" will now run on yours thread, not on the "normal threads" of your UI or comms framework. You will need to ensure that all resources are external to your thread-task are properly guarded or synchronized, or else you'll probably clash with other application threads.
For instance, in WinForms, before you touch any UI things from the finalizer, you will need the Control.InvokeRequired (surely=true) and Control.BeginInvoke/Invoke to bounce the context back to the UI thread.
For instance, in WPF, before you touch any UI things from the finalizer, you will need the Dispatcher.BeginInvoke..
Or, if the clash could occur with any threads you control, simple proper lock() could be enough. etc.

You can use a combination of custom event and the use of BeginInvoke:
public event EventHandler MyLongRunningTaskEvent;
private void StartMyLongRunningTask() {
MyLongRunningTaskEvent += myLongRunningTaskIsDone;
Thread _thread = new Thread(myLongRunningTask) { IsBackground = true };
_thread.Start();
label.Text = "Running...";
}
private void myLongRunningTaskIsDone(object sender, EventArgs arg)
{
label.Text = "Done!";
}
private void myLongRunningTask()
{
try
{
// Do my long task...
}
finally
{
this.BeginInvoke(Foo, this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
I checked, it's work under .NET 3.5

You could use the Observer Pattern, take a look here:
http://www.dofactory.com/Patterns/PatternObserver.aspx
The observer pattern will allow you, to notify other objects which were previously defined as observer.

A very simple thread of execution with completion callback
This does not need to run in a mono behavior and is simply used for convenience
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using UnityEngine;
public class ThreadTest : MonoBehaviour
{
private List<int> numbers = null;
private void Start()
{
Debug.Log("1. Call thread task");
StartMyLongRunningTask();
Debug.Log("2. Do something else");
}
private void StartMyLongRunningTask()
{
numbers = new List<int>();
ThreadStart starter = myLongRunningTask;
starter += () =>
{
myLongRunningTaskDone();
};
Thread _thread = new Thread(starter) { IsBackground = true };
_thread.Start();
}
private void myLongRunningTaskDone()
{
Debug.Log("3. Task callback result");
foreach (int num in numbers)
Debug.Log(num);
}
private void myLongRunningTask()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
numbers.Add(i);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}

Try to use ManualRestEvent to signal of thread complete.

Maybe using conditional variables and mutex, or some functions like wait(), signal(), maybe timed wait() to not block main thread infinitely.
In C# this will be:
void Notify()
{
lock (syncPrimitive)
{
Monitor.Pulse(syncPrimitive);
}
}
void RunLoop()
{
for (;;)
{
// do work here...
lock (syncPrimitive)
{
Monitor.Wait(syncPrimitive);
}
}
}
more on that here:
Condition Variables C#/.NET
It is the concept of Monitor object in C#, you also have version that enables to set timeout
public static bool Wait(
object obj,
TimeSpan timeout
)
more on that here:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.monitor_methods(v=vs.110).aspx

How to update UI from another thread running in another class

I am currently writing my first program on C# and I am extremely new to the language (used to only work with C so far). I have done a lot of research, but all answers were too general and I simply couldn't get it t work.
So here my (very common) problem:
I have a WPF application which takes inputs from a few textboxes filled by the user and then uses that to do a lot of calculations with them. They should take around 2-3 minutes, so I would like to update a progress bar and a textblock telling me what the current status is.
Also I need to store the UI inputs from the user and give them to the thread, so I have a third class, which I use to create an object and would like to pass this object to the background thread.
Obviously I would run the calculations in another thread, so the UI doesn't freeze, but I don't know how to update the UI, since all the calculation methods are part of another class.
After a lot of reasearch I think the best method to go with would be using dispatchers and TPL and not a backgroundworker, but honestly I am not sure how they work and after around 20 hours of trial and error with other answers, I decided to ask a question myself.
Here a very simple structure of my program:
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public MainWindow()
{
Initialize Component();
}
private void startCalc(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
inputValues input = new inputValues();
calcClass calculations = new calcClass();
try
{
input.pota = Convert.ToDouble(aVar.Text);
input.potb = Convert.ToDouble(bVar.Text);
input.potc = Convert.ToDouble(cVar.Text);
input.potd = Convert.ToDouble(dVar.Text);
input.potf = Convert.ToDouble(fVar.Text);
input.potA = Convert.ToDouble(AVar.Text);
input.potB = Convert.ToDouble(BVar.Text);
input.initStart = Convert.ToDouble(initStart.Text);
input.initEnd = Convert.ToDouble(initEnd.Text);
input.inita = Convert.ToDouble(inita.Text);
input.initb = Convert.ToDouble(initb.Text);
input.initc = Convert.ToDouble(initb.Text);
}
catch
{
MessageBox.Show("Some input values are not of the expected Type.", "Wrong Input", MessageBoxButton.OK, MessageBoxImage.Error);
}
Thread calcthread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(calculations.testMethod);
calcthread.Start(input);
}
public class inputValues
{
public double pota, potb, potc, potd, potf, potA, potB;
public double initStart, initEnd, inita, initb, initc;
}
public class calcClass
{
public void testmethod(inputValues input)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
int i;
//the input object will be used somehow, but that doesn't matter for my problem
for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
}
}
I would be very grateful if someone had a simple explanation how to update the UI from inside the testmethod. Since I am new to C# and object oriented programming, too complicated answers I will very likely not understand, I'll do my best though.
Also if someone has a better idea in general (maybe using backgroundworker or anything else) I am open to see it.

First you need to use Dispatcher.Invoke to change the UI from another thread and to do that from another class, you can use events.
Then you can register to that event(s) in the main class and Dispatch the changes to the UI and in the calculation class you throw the event when you want to notify the UI:
class MainWindow : Window
{
private void startCalc()
{
//your code
CalcClass calc = new CalcClass();
calc.ProgressUpdate += (s, e) => {
Dispatcher.Invoke((Action)delegate() { /* update UI */ });
};
Thread calcthread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(calc.testMethod));
calcthread.Start(input);
}
}
class CalcClass
{
public event EventHandler ProgressUpdate;
public void testMethod(object input)
{
//part 1
if(ProgressUpdate != null)
ProgressUpdate(this, new YourEventArgs(status));
//part 2
}
}
UPDATE:
As it seems this is still an often visited question and answer I want to update this answer with how I would do it now (with .NET 4.5) - this is a little longer as I will show some different possibilities:
class MainWindow : Window
{
Task calcTask = null;
void buttonStartCalc_Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e) { StartCalc(); } // #1
async void buttonDoCalc_Clicked(object sender, EventArgs e) // #2
{
await CalcAsync(); // #2
}
void StartCalc()
{
var calc = PrepareCalc();
calcTask = Task.Run(() => calc.TestMethod(input)); // #3
}
Task CalcAsync()
{
var calc = PrepareCalc();
return Task.Run(() => calc.TestMethod(input)); // #4
}
CalcClass PrepareCalc()
{
//your code
var calc = new CalcClass();
calc.ProgressUpdate += (s, e) => Dispatcher.Invoke((Action)delegate()
{
// update UI
});
return calc;
}
}
class CalcClass
{
public event EventHandler<EventArgs<YourStatus>> ProgressUpdate; // #5
public TestMethod(InputValues input)
{
//part 1
ProgressUpdate.Raise(this, status); // #6 - status is of type YourStatus
// alternative version to the extension for C# 6+:
ProgressUpdate?.Invoke(this, new EventArgs<YourStatus>(status));
//part 2
}
}
static class EventExtensions
{
public static void Raise<T>(this EventHandler<EventArgs<T>> theEvent,
object sender, T args)
{
if (theEvent != null)
theEvent(sender, new EventArgs<T>(args));
}
}
#1) How to start the "synchronous" calculations and run them in the background
#2) How to start it "asynchronous" and "await it": Here the calculation is executed and completed before the method returns, but because of the async/await the UI is not blocked (BTW: such event handlers are the only valid usages of async void as the event handler must return void - use async Task in all other cases)
#3) Instead of a new Thread we now use a Task. To later be able to check its (successfull) completion we save it in the global calcTask member. In the background this also starts a new thread and runs the action there, but it is much easier to handle and has some other benefits.
#4) Here we also start the action, but this time we return the task, so the "async event handler" can "await it". We could also create async Task CalcAsync() and then await Task.Run(() => calc.TestMethod(input)).ConfigureAwait(false); (FYI: the ConfigureAwait(false) is to avoid deadlocks, you should read up on this if you use async/await as it would be to much to explain here) which would result in the same workflow, but as the Task.Run is the only "awaitable operation" and is the last one we can simply return the task and save one context switch, which saves some execution time.
#5) Here I now use a "strongly typed generic event" so we can pass and receive our "status object" easily
#6) Here I use the extension defined below, which (aside from ease of use) solve the possible race condition in the old example. There it could have happened that the event got null after the if-check, but before the call if the event handler was removed in another thread at just that moment. This can't happen here, as the extensions gets a "copy" of the event delegate and in the same situation the handler is still registered inside the Raise method.

I am going to throw you a curve ball here. If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times. Marshaling operations like Invoke or BeginInvoke are not always the best methods for updating the UI with worker thread progress.
In this case it usually works better to have the worker thread publish its progress information to a shared data structure that the UI thread then polls at regular intervals. This has several advantages.
It breaks the tight coupling between the UI and worker thread that Invoke imposes.
The UI thread gets to dictate when the UI controls get updated...the way it should be anyway when you really think about it.
There is no risk of overrunning the UI message queue as would be the case if BeginInvoke were used from the worker thread.
The worker thread does not have to wait for a response from the UI thread as would be the case with Invoke.
You get more throughput on both the UI and worker threads.
Invoke and BeginInvoke are expensive operations.
So in your calcClass create a data structure that will hold the progress information.
public class calcClass
{
private double percentComplete = 0;
public double PercentComplete
{
get
{
// Do a thread-safe read here.
return Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref percentComplete, 0, 0);
}
}
public testMethod(object input)
{
int count = 1000;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
double newvalue = ((double)i + 1) / (double)count;
Interlocked.Exchange(ref percentComplete, newvalue);
}
}
}
Then in your MainWindow class use a DispatcherTimer to periodically poll the progress information. Configure the DispatcherTimer to raise the Tick event on whatever interval is most appropriate for your situation.
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
public void YourDispatcherTimer_Tick(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
YourProgressBar.Value = calculation.PercentComplete;
}
}

You're right that you should use the Dispatcher to update controls on the UI thread, and also right that long-running processes should not run on the UI thread. Even if you run the long-running process asynchronously on the UI thread, it can still cause performance issues.
It should be noted that Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher will return the dispatcher for the current thread, not necessarily the UI thread. I think you can use Application.Current.Dispatcher to get a reference to the UI thread's dispatcher if that's available to you, but if not you'll have to pass the UI dispatcher in to your background thread.
Typically I use the Task Parallel Library for threading operations instead of a BackgroundWorker. I just find it easier to use.
For example,
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
SomeObject.RunLongProcess(someDataObject));
where
void RunLongProcess(SomeViewModel someDataObject)
{
for (int i = 0; i <= 1000; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
// Update every 10 executions
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
// Send message to UI thread
Application.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(
DispatcherPriority.Normal,
(Action)(() => someDataObject.ProgressValue = (i / 1000)));
}
}
}

Everything that interacts with the UI must be called in the UI thread (unless it is a frozen object). To do that, you can use the dispatcher.
var disp = /* Get the UI dispatcher, each WPF object has a dispatcher which you can query*/
disp.BeginInvoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal,
(Action)(() => /*Do your UI Stuff here*/));
I use BeginInvoke here, usually a backgroundworker doesn't need to wait that the UI updates. If you want to wait, you can use Invoke. But you should be careful not to call BeginInvoke to fast to often, this can get really nasty.
By the way, The BackgroundWorker class helps with this kind of taks. It allows Reporting changes, like a percentage and dispatches this automatically from the Background thread into the ui thread. For the most thread <> update ui tasks the BackgroundWorker is a great tool.

If this is a long calculation then I would go background worker. It has progress support. It also has support for cancel.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=VS.95).aspx
Here I have a TextBox bound to contents.
private void backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
Debug.Write("backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted");
if (e.Cancelled)
{
contents = "Cancelled get contents.";
NotifyPropertyChanged("Contents");
}
else if (e.Error != null)
{
contents = "An Error Occured in get contents";
NotifyPropertyChanged("Contents");
}
else
{
contents = (string)e.Result;
if (contentTabSelectd) NotifyPropertyChanged("Contents");
}
}

You are going to have to come back to your main thread (also called UI thread) in order to update the UI.
Any other thread trying to update your UI will just cause exceptions to be thrown all over the place.
So because you are in WPF, you can use the Dispatcher and more specifically a beginInvoke on this dispatcher. This will allow you to execute what needs done (typically Update the UI) in the UI thread.
You migh also want to "register" the UI in your business, by maintaining a reference to a control/form, so you can use its dispatcher.

Thank God, Microsoft got that figured out in WPF :)
Every Control, like a progress bar, button, form, etc. has a Dispatcher on it. You can give the Dispatcher an Action that needs to be performed, and it will automatically call it on the correct thread (an Action is like a function delegate).
You can find an example here.
Of course, you'll have to have the control accessible from other classes, e.g. by making it public and handing a reference to the Window to your other class, or maybe by passing a reference only to the progress bar.

Felt the need to add this better answer, as nothing except BackgroundWorker seemed to help me, and the answer dealing with that thus far was woefully incomplete. This is how you would update a XAML page called MainWindow that has an Image tag like this:
<Image Name="imgNtwkInd" Source="Images/network_on.jpg" Width="50" />
with a BackgroundWorker process to show if you are connected to the network or not:
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Windows;
using System.Windows.Controls;
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
private BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker();
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
// Set up background worker to allow progress reporting and cancellation
bw.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
bw.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
// This is your main work process that records progress
bw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(SomeClass.DoWork);
// This will update your page based on that progress
bw.ProgressChanged += new ProgressChangedEventHandler(bw_ProgressChanged);
// This starts your background worker and "DoWork()"
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
// When this page closes, this will run and cancel your background worker
this.Closing += new CancelEventHandler(Page_Unload);
}
private void bw_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
BitmapImage bImg = new BitmapImage();
bool connected = false;
string response = e.ProgressPercentage.ToString(); // will either be 1 or 0 for true/false -- this is the result recorded in DoWork()
if (response == "1")
connected = true;
// Do something with the result we got
if (!connected)
{
bImg.BeginInit();
bImg.UriSource = new Uri("Images/network_off.jpg", UriKind.Relative);
bImg.EndInit();
imgNtwkInd.Source = bImg;
}
else
{
bImg.BeginInit();
bImg.UriSource = new Uri("Images/network_on.jpg", UriKind.Relative);
bImg.EndInit();
imgNtwkInd.Source = bImg;
}
}
private void Page_Unload(object sender, CancelEventArgs e)
{
bw.CancelAsync(); // stops the background worker when unloading the page
}
}
public class SomeClass
{
public static bool connected = false;
public void DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker bw = sender as BackgroundWorker;
int i = 0;
do
{
connected = CheckConn(); // do some task and get the result
if (bw.CancellationPending == true)
{
e.Cancel = true;
break;
}
else
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
// Record your result here
if (connected)
bw.ReportProgress(1);
else
bw.ReportProgress(0);
}
}
while (i == 0);
}
private static bool CheckConn()
{
bool conn = false;
Ping png = new Ping();
string host = "SomeComputerNameHere";
try
{
PingReply pngReply = png.Send(host);
if (pngReply.Status == IPStatus.Success)
conn = true;
}
catch (PingException ex)
{
// write exception to log
}
return conn;
}
}
For more information: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=VS.95).aspx

WPF / XAML: How do I execute threaded processes and prevent the main UI from being busy / freezing?

I have a XAML application that serves as the UI for an automation. The entire automation can take anywhere from 20-30 hours to fully execute so I created a Task class object that essentially wraps Thread methods (Start/Stop/Reset).
However, when I run the automation method under the Task object, the XAML UI is busy and I cannot interact with the other controls, including the Pause button which toggles the Thread.Set() flag.
There is another post
Prevent UI from freezing without additional threads
where someone recommended the BackgroundWorker class this MSDN article mentions it is a bad idea to use this when if it manipulates objects in the UI, which mine does for purposes of displaying status counts:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Any idea around this?
private void OnButtonStartAutomationClick(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
btnPauseAutomation.IsEnabled = true;
Automation.Task AutomationThread = new Automation.Task(RunFullAutomation);
}
private void RunFullAutomation()
{
// do stuff that can take 20+ hours
// threaded so I can utilize a pause button (block)
}
class Task
{
private ManualResetEvent _shutdownFlag = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private ManualResetEvent _pauseFlag = new ManualResetEvent(true);
private Thread _thread;
private readonly Action _action;
public Task(Action action)
{
_action = action;
}
public void Start()
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(DoDelegatedMethod);
_thread = new Thread(ts);
_thread.Start();
_thread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
}
public void Resume()
{
_pauseFlag.Set();
}
public void Stop()
{
_shutdownFlag.Set();
_pauseFlag.Set();
_thread.Join();
}
private void DoDelegatedMethod()
{
do
{
_action();
}
while (!_shutdownFlag.WaitOne(0));
}
}

where someone recommended the BackgroundWorker class this MSDN article mentions it is a bad idea to use this when if it manipulates objects in the UI, which mine does for purposes of displaying status counts
BackgroundWorker is actually ideal for this, as it was designed for this type of scenario. The warning is that you shouldn't change UI elements inside of DoWork, but rather via ReportProgress and the ProgressChanged event.
The reason the warning exists is "DoWork" is executed on a background thread. If you set a UI element value from there, you'll get a cross threading exception. However, ReportProgress/ProgressChanged automatically marshals the call back into the proper SynchronizationContext for you.

Take a look at the Dispatcher object in WPF. You can, and should in your scenario, run the long running tasks on a background thread and the BackgroundWorker is a good way to do it. When you need to update the UI you need to verify access to the UI thread and if you don't have it use the dispatcher to invoke an update method on the UI thread.

There are two possible causes here: first, that the blocking task is blocking the UI thread rather than running on a background thread, and second, that the background thread is starving the UI thread so that it never gets the chance to respond to input. You need to find out which of these is the case. A crude way to do this is, in your Click handler, Debug.WriteLine the current thread ID (Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId), and do the same in the RunFullAutomation callback.
If these print the same number, then you have the first problem. Reed and TheZenker have provided solutions to this.
If these print different numbers, then you are already on a worker thread, and you have the second problem. (BackgroundWorker may get you to the worker thread more elegantly, and will help with updating the UI, but it won't stop starvation.) In this case the simplest fix is probably to set _thread.Priority = ThreadPriority.BelowNormal; before starting the worker thread.
By the way, your code never appears to actually call AutomationThread.Start, which means the RunFullAutomation callback isn't even executed. Is this just a typo?

I'd advise against rolling out your own Task class given that .NET 4 has full support for running tasks asynchronously in the background using the Task Parallel Library
That said,you can do what Reed suggests and use a BackgroundWorker which is ideal or if you prefer more control over the nature of how the task si executing, you could use the Task class from System.Threading.Tasks and implement something like so:
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
CancellationTokenSource source = new CancellationTokenSource();
SynchronizationContext context = SynchronizationContext.Current;
Task task;
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void DoWork()
{
for (int i = 0; i <= 100; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(500); //simulate long running task
if (source.IsCancellationRequested)
{
context.Send((_) => labelPrg.Content = "Cancelled!!!", null);
break;
}
context.Send((_) => labelPrg.Content = prg.Value = prg.Value + 1, null);
}
}
private void Start_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
task = Task.Factory.StartNew(DoWork, source.Token);
}
private void Cancel_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
source.Cancel();
}
}
In DoWork() you use the WPF SynchronizationContext and post messages to update the UI wiget you need.
The example has a progress bar and a label control that is updated on each iteration of the for loop.Cancellation is supported using CancellationTokenSource which is checked in each iteration.
Hope this helps.

Cancelling Background Tasks

When my C# application closes it sometimes gets caught in the cleanup routine. Specifically, a background worker is not closing. This is basically how I am attempting to close it:
private void App_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
backgroundWorker1.CancelAsync();
while (backgroundWorker1.IsBusy) ; // Gets stuck here.
}
Is there a different way that I should be doing this? I am using Microsoft Visual C# 2008 Express Edition. Thanks.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The background worker does not appear to be exiting. This is what I have:
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
while (!backgroundWorker1.CancellationPending)
{
// Do something.
}
}
I've also modified the cleanup code:
private void App_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
while (backgroundWorker1.IsBusy)
{
backgroundWorker1.CancelAsync();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
Is there something else that I should be doing?

Some pretty good suggestions, but I don't believe they address the underlying issue: canceling a background task.
Unfortunately, when using BackgroundWorker, termination of your task depends on the task itself. The only way your while loop will terminate, is if your background task checks its Cancel property and returns or breaks from its current process.
Example Base
For example, consider
private readonly BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker ();
public void SomeFormEventForStartingBackgroundTask ()
{
worker.DoWork += BackgroundTask_HotelCalifornia;
worker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
worker.RunWorkerAsync ();
}
// semantically, you want to perform this task for lifetime of
// application, you may even expect that calling CancelAsync
// will out and out abort this method - that is incorrect.
// CancelAsync will only set DoWorkEventArgs.Cancel property
// to true
private void BackgroundTask_HotelCalifornia (object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
for ( ; ;)
{
// because we never inspect e.Cancel, we can never leave!
}
}
private void App_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
// [politely] request termination
worker.CancelAsync();
// [politely] wait until background task terminates
while (worker.IsBusy);
}
This is what is happening by default. Now, maybe your task isn't an infinite loop, perhaps it is just a long-running task. Either way, your main thread will block [actually it is spinning, but whatevs] until the task completes, or doesn't as the case may be.
If you have personally written and can modify the task, then you have a few options.
Example Improvement
For instance, this is a better implementation of the above example
private readonly BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker ();
// this is used to signal our main Gui thread that background
// task has completed
private readonly AutoResetEvent isWorkerStopped =
new AutoResentEvent (false);
public void SomeFormEventForStartingBackgroundTask ()
{
worker.DoWork += BackgroundTask_HotelCalifornia;
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += BackgroundTask_Completed;
worker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
worker.RunWorkerAsync ();
}
private void BackgroundTask_HotelCalifornia (object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
// execute until canceled
for ( ; !e.Cancel;)
{
// keep in mind, this task will *block* main
// thread until cancel flag is checked again,
// so if you are, say crunching SETI numbers
// here for instance, you could still be blocking
// a long time. but long time is better than
// forever ;)
}
}
private void BackgroundTask_Completed (
object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
// ok, our task has stopped, set signal to 'signaled' state
// we are complete!
isStopped.Set ();
}
private void App_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
// [politely] request termination
worker.CancelAsync();
// [politely] wait until background task terminates
isStopped.WaitOne ();
}
While this is better, it's not as good as it could be. If you can be [reasonably] assured your background task will end, this may be "good enough".
However, what we [typically] want, is something like this
private void App_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
// [politely] request termination
worker.CancelAsync();
// [politely] wait until background task terminates
TimeSpan gracePeriod = TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100);
bool isStoppedGracefully = isStopped.WaitOne (gracePeriod);
if (!isStoppedGracefully)
{
// KILL! KILL! KILL!
}
}
Alas, we cannot. BackgroundWorker does not expose any means of forceful termination. This is because it is an abstraction built on top of some hidden thread management system, one which could potentially destabalize other parts of your application if it were forcefully terminated.
The only means [that I have seen at least] to implement the above is to manage your own threading.
Example Ideal
So, for instance
private Thread worker = null;
// this time, 'Thread' provides all synchronization
// constructs required for main thread to synchronize
// with background task. however, in the interest of
// giving background task a chance to terminate gracefully
// we supply it with this cancel signal
private readonly AutoResetEvent isCanceled = new AutoResentEvent (false);
public void SomeFormEventForStartingBackgroundTask ()
{
worker = new Thread (BackgroundTask_HotelCalifornia);
worker.IsBackground = true;
worker.Name = "Some Background Task"; // always handy to name things!
worker.Start ();
}
private void BackgroundTask_HotelCalifornia ()
{
// inspect cancel signal, no wait period
//
// NOTE: so cheating here a bit, this is an instance variable
// but could as easily be supplied via parameterized thread
// start delegate
for ( ; !isCanceled.WaitOne (0);)
{
}
}
private void App_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
// [politely] request termination
isCanceled.Set ();
// [politely] wait until background task terminates
TimeSpan gracePeriod = TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100);
bool isStoppedGracefully = worker.Join (gracePeriod);
if (!isStoppedGracefully)
{
// wipe them out, all of them.
worker.Abort ();
}
}
And that there, is a decent introduction on thread management.
Which is best suited for you? Depends on your application. It is probably best not to rock the boat, and modify your current implementation to ensure that
your background task inspects and respects the Cancel property
your main thread waits for completion, as opposed to polling
It is very important to compare and evaluate the pros and cons of each approach.
If you must control and guarantee termination of someone else's tasks, then writing a thread management system that incorporates the above may be the way to go. However you would lose out on out-of-box features like thread pooling, progress reporting, cross-thread data marshalling [worker does that, no?], and a bunch of other stuff. Not to mention, "rolling your own" is often error prone.
Anyway, hope this helps :)

Kevin Gale is correct in stating that your BackgroundWorker's DoWork handler needs to poll for CancellationPending and return if a cancellation is requested.
That being said, if this is happening when your application is shutting down, you can just ignore it safely, as well. BackgroundWorker uses a ThreadPool thread, which is, by definition, a background thread. Leaving this running will not prevent your application from terminating, and the thread will automatically be torn down when your application shuts down.

In the background worker thread you need to check the BackgroundWorker.CancellationPending flag and exit if it is true.
The CancelAsync() just sets this flag.
Or to put it another way. CancelAsync() doesn't actually cancel anything. It won't abort the thread or cause it to exit. If the worker thread is in a loop and checks the CancellationPending flag periodically it can catch the cancel request and exit.
MSDN has an example here although it doesn't use a loop in the worker routine.

This code is guaranteed to deadlock when the BGW is still running. BGW cannot complete until its RunWorkerCompleted event finished running. RunWorkerCompleted cannot run until the UI thread goes idle and runs the message loop. But the UI thread isn't idle, it is stuck in the while loop.
If you want the BGW thread to complete cleanly, you have to keep your form alive. Check this thread to see how to do that.

Try:
if (this.backgroundWorker1.IsBusy) this.backgroundWorker1.CancelAsync();