We Keep Coding

Need to implement "Scan" method in dll (non blocking)

Sorry for the title, i didn't find it easy to resume.
My issue is that I need to implement a c# dll that implements a 'scan' method, but this scan, when invoked, must not block the main thread of the application using the dll. Moreover, it is a duty that after the scan resolves it rises an Event.
So my issue (in the deep) is that i'm not so experienced at c#, and after very hard investigation i've come up with some solutions but i'm not very sure if they are the "right" procedures.
In the dll i've come up with:
public class Reader
{
public delegate void ReaderEventHandler(Object sender, AlertEventArgs e);
public void Scan(String ReaderName)
{
AlertEventArgs alertEventArgs = new AlertEventArgs();
alertEventArgs.uuiData = null;
//Code with blocking scan function here
if (ScanFinnished)
{
alertEventArgs.uuiData = "Scan Finnished!";
}
alertEventArgs.cardStateData = readerState[0].eventState;
ReaderEvent(new object(), alertEventArgs);
}
public event ReaderEventHandler ReaderEvent;
}
public class AlertEventArgs : EventArgs
{
#region AlertEventArgs Properties
private string _uui = null;
private uint cardState = 0;
#endregion
#region Get/Set Properties
public string uuiData
{
get { return _uui; }
set { _uui = value; }
}
public uint cardStateData
{
get { return cardState; }
set { cardState = value; }
}
#endregion
}
While in the main app I do:
Reader reader;
Task polling;
String SelectedReader = "Some_Reader";
private void bButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
reader = new Reader();
reader.ReaderEvent += new Reader.ReaderEventHandler(reader_EventChanged);
polling = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => reader.Scan(SelectedReader));
}
void reader_EventChanged(object sender, AlertEventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.uuiData + " Estado: " + e.cardStateData.ToString("X"));
reader.Dispose();
}
So here, it works fine but i don't know if it's the proper way, in addition i'm not able to handle possible Exceptions generated in the dll.
Also tried to use async/await but found it difficult and as I understand it's just a simpler workaround Tasks.
What are the inconvinients of this solution? how can i capture Exceptions (are they in other threads and that's why i cant try/catch them)? Possible concept faults?

When your class sends events, the sender usually is that class, this. Having new object() as sender makes absolutely no sense. Even null would be better but... just use this.
You shouldn't directly raise events as it might result in race conditions. Might not happen easily in your case but it's just a good guideline to follow. So instead of calling ReaderEvent(new object(), alertEventArgs); call RaiseReaderEvent(alertEventArgs); and create method for it.
For example:
private void RaiseReaderEvent(AlertEventArgs args)
{
var myEvent = ReaderEvent; // This prevents race conditions
if (myEvent != null) // remember to check that someone actually subscribes your event
myEvent(this, args); // Sender should be *this*, not some "new object()".
}
Though I personally like a bit more generic approach:
private void Raise<T>(EventHandler<T> oEvent, T args) where T : EventArgs
{
var eventInstance = oEvent;
if (eventInstance != null)
eventInstance(this, args);
}
Which can then be used to raise all events in same class like this:
Raise(ReaderEvent, alertEventArgs);
Since your scan should be non-blocking, you could use tasks, async/await or threads for example. You have chosen Tasks which is perfectly fine.
In every case you must understand that when you are not blocking your application, your application's main thread continues going like a train. Once you jump out of that train, you can't return. You probably should declare a new event "ErrorEvent" that is raised if your scan-procedure catches an exception. Your main application can then subscribe to that event as well, but you still must realize that those events are not (necessarily) coming from the main thread. When not, you won't be able to interact with your GUI directly (I'm assuming you have one due to button click handler). If you are using WinForms, you'll have to invoke all GUI changes when required.
So your UI-thread safe event handler should be something like this:
void reader_EventChanged(object sender, AlertEventArgs e)
{
if (InvokeRequired) // This true for others than UI Thread.
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
Text = "My new title!";
});
}
else
Text = "My new title!";
}
In WPF there's Dispather that handles similar invoking.

Passing value using an event

So, first I generate a List containing custom usercontrols made of a button and progressbar, I generate this using a for loop.
Inside this loop I send each events to the desired methods, now what I need is access to the progress bar inside of the reset method, how do I do that?
ProgressTimerList[i].Button.Reset += Button_Reset;
ProgressTimerList[i].Progressbar //////Need access to this object
And
void Button_Reset(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//////Inside of here
}

Create a class inherited from EventArgs with a property of type Progressbar and pass it to the handler:
public class MyButtonEventArgs : EventArgs{
public --WhateverProgressbarTypeIs-- Bar {get;set;}
}
ProgressTimerList[i].Button.Reset += (sender, e) => Button_Reset(sender, new MyEventArgs { Bar = ProgressTimerList[i].Progressbar });
void Button_Reset(object sender, MyButtonEventArgs e)
{
var wunderBar = e.Bar;
}

By far the easiest way to handle this is to use anonymous methods.
At the point in your code where you are attaching the handler, try this:
ProgressTimerList[i].Button.Reset += (s, e) =>
{
//////Inside of here
ProgressTimerList[i].Progressbar //////Can access this object
};
No need whatsoever for the Button_Reset method.
The other nice thing is that this encapsulates the event handling within a method so that other code can't directly call Button_Reset. As encapsulation is one of the four pillars of OOP this helps to make your code more robust.
If you need to detach the handler you can do this:
EventHandler button_reset = (s, e) =>
{
//////Inside of here
ProgressTimerList[i].Progressbar; //////Can access this object
///more code
///detach
ProgressTimerList[i].Button.Reset -= button_reset;
};
ProgressTimerList[i].Button.Reset += button_reset;
If you have a clash with the name of e within your MainForm_Load then just call it e2 instead.
One other gotcha you might hit is that you're accessing items in an array within your event handler. You probably need to capture the variable locally before using it in the handler.
Like this:
for (var i = 0; i < ProgressTimerList.Count(); i++)
{
var local_i = i;
EventHandler button_reset = (s, e) =>
{
//////Inside of here
ProgressTimerList[local_i].Progressbar; //////Can access this object
///more code
///detach
ProgressTimerList[local_i].Button.Reset -= button_reset;
};
ProgressTimerList[i].Button.Reset += button_reset;
}

((ProgressTimerListType)((Button)sender).Parent).ProgressBar
Solved it using this thanks to Ron Beyer! Thanks!
If someone is up for more detail can I ask, why do I need to cast the sender before I can use it as a Button, not just use sender.Parent?

Check if event (doubleClick) is running

I am writing a tool which switchs between a lot of states. For some events I need to be sure they wont get executed a second time while the called function (inside the event) is running. This is how I managed it before:
// Global variables //
public bool func1IsRunning = false;
public bool func2IsRunning = false;
...
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(!func1IsRunning)
{
func1();
func1IsRunning = false;
}
}
public void func1()
{
func1IsRunning = true;
// some code in here //
}
But with every extension of my tool the list of the global variables grows up. Also the events and functions getting less clear to read.
Isnt there a way like this(?):
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(DoubleClick.IsHandled)
{
func1();
}
}
public void func1()
{
// some code in here //
// ................. //
DoubleClick.IsHandled = true; // at the end of the function //
}
So what I am looking for is a way to determine if an event is still running or not. My code is working, im just unhappy with how it looks like.
Any ideas?
UPDATE 1
I decided to use Steve's answer as it solves my problem by the clearest way.
Anyway it is NOT running correctly for now.
Here is how my code looks like:
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
listView.DoubleClick -= new EventHandler(listView_DoubleClick);
itemEdit();
}
finally
{
listView.DoubleClick += new EventHandler(listView_DoubleClick);
}
}
The code above is NOT disabling the handler.
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
listView.DoubleClick -= listView_DoubleClick;
itemEdit();
}
finally
{
listView.DoubleClick += listView_DoubleClick;
}
}
This code is also not disabling the handler.
This is the line where the handler gets enabled (MainForm.Designer.cs):
this.listView.DoubleClick += new System.EventHandler(this.listView_DoubleClick);
There are no errors raised. The event just gets fired again and again. Where is the problem?
UPDATE 2:
As Sinatr asked in the comments below if my function is really waiting or just enabling user input he discovered where the mistake was made.
Steve's answer is correct according to my wrong written question. Thanks a lot to all of you guys.

Just disable the event handler
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
try
{
listView.DoubleClick -= listView_DoubleClick;
// Now, even if func1 causes a DoubleClick event,
// or user manages to trigger a DobuleClick
// there is no event registered and this code could
// reentered until you exit from func1.
func1();
}
finally
{
// Important part. the finally block is required
// because you should readd the event handler
// ALSO in case an exception occurs in func1
// and it is not handled there
listView.DoubleClick += listView_DoubleClick;
}
}
EDIT
Looking at your comment I suspect that this DoubleClick event is assigned to more than one control. If this is the case, using the global listView global instance of a listview doesn't disable the double click on other controls that are linked to the same code.
If this is the case then you need a more generic approach
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Control c = sender as Control;
try
{
if(c != null)
{
c.DoubleClick -= listView_DoubleClick;
// Now, even if func1 causes a DoubleClick event,
// or user manages to trigger a DobuleClick
// there is no event registered and this code could
// reentered until you exit from func1.
func1();
}
}
finally
{
// Important part. the finally block is required
// because you should readd the event handler
// ALSO in case an exception occurs in func1
// and it is not handled there
if(c != null) c.DoubleClick += listView_DoubleClick;
}
}
Of course, this is just to enable/disable DoubleClicks events, it cannot works if you assign this event handler to other standard events like Click that have the same signature (object sender, EventArgs e)

How about something like the following using locks:
private object globalLock = new object();
private Dictionary<int, object> lockObjects = new Dictionary<int, object>();
public void listView_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
object lockObject;
lock (globalLock) // to avoid two threads creating the object
{
if (!lockObjects.ContainsKey(1))
lockObjects.Add(1, new object());
lockObject = lockObjects[1];
}
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObject) // enter only if no thread has already entered
{
try { func1(); }
finally { Monitor.Exit(lockObject); }
}
}
This is different to Steve's logic in the matter that it is thread-safe.

A simple state-machine should solve your problem without requiring too many variables. Create an Enum named AppState like this:
enum AppState
{
Ready = 1,
InsideListView1Click = 2,
InsideListView1DoubleClick = 3
InsideListView2Click = 4,
InsideListView2DoubleClick = 5
}
This enum could grow as you add new controls and/or event-handlers to your application. Now use a single global variable that keeps track of the application state and modify it inside event-handlers appropriately:
private AppState m_State = AppState.Ready;
And in the event-handlers you would do:
private void ListView1_DoubleClick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock
{
if(m_State != AppState.Ready)
return;
else
m_State = AppState.InsideListView1DoubleClick;
}
//Do your stuff
m_State = AppState.Ready;
}
This way newer calls will be ignored instead of being queued. If you expect to be in multiple states at the same time, you could apply [Flags] attribute on this enum as well. Also note that enums are thread-safe and evaluating them is atomic, so multi-threading shouldn't be a problem either.

Temporarily stop form events from either being raised or being handled?

I have a ton on controls on a form, and there is a specific time when I want to stop all of my events from being handled for the time being. Usually I just do something like this if I don't want certain events handled:
private bool myOpRunning = false;
private void OpFunction()
{
myOpRunning = true;
// do stuff
myOpRunning = false;
}
private void someHandler(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (myOpRunning) return;
// otherwise, do things
}
But I have A LOT of handlers I need to update. Just curious if .NET has a quicker way than having to update each handler method.

You will have to create your own mechanism to do this. It's not too bad though. Consider adding another layer of abstraction. For example, a simple class called FilteredEventHandler that checks the state of myOpRunning and either calls the real event handler, or suppresses the event. The class would look something like this:
public sealed class FilteredEventHandler
{
private readonly Func<bool> supressEvent;
private readonly EventHandler realEvent;
public FilteredEventHandler(Func<bool> supressEvent, EventHandler eventToRaise)
{
this.supressEvent = supressEvent;
this.realEvent = eventToRaise;
}
//Checks the "supress" flag and either call the real event handler, or skip it
public void FakeEventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!this.supressEvent())
{
this.realEvent(sender, e);
}
}
}
Then when you hook up the event, do this:
this.Control.WhateverEvent += new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler).FakeEventHandler;
When WhateverEvent gets raised, it will call the FilteredEventHandler.FakeEventHandler method. That method will check the flag and either call, or not call the real event handler. This is pretty much logically the same as what you're already doing, but the code that checks the myOpRunning flag is in only one place instead of sprinkled all over your code.
Edit to answer question in the comments:
Now, this example is a bit incomplete. It's a little difficult to unsubscribe from the event completely because you lose the reference to the FilteredEventHandler that's hooked up. For example, you can't do:
this.Control.WhateverEvent += new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler).FakeEventHandler;
//Some other stuff. . .
this.Control.WhateverEvent -= new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler).FakeEventHandler; //Not gonna work!
because you're hooking up one delegate and unhooking a completely different one! Granted, both delegates are the FakeEventHandler method, but that's an instance method and they belong to two completely different FilteredEventHandler objects.
Somehow, you need to get a reference to the first FilteredEventHandler that you constructed in order to unhook. Something like this would work, but it involves keeping track of a bunch of FilteredEventHandler objects which is probably no better than the original problem you're trying to solve:
FilteredEventHandler filter1 = new FilteredEventHandler(() => myOpRunning, RealEventHandler);
this.Control.WhateverEvent += filter1.FakeEventHandler;
//Code that does other stuff. . .
this.Control.WhateverEvent -= filter1.FakeEventHandler;
What I would do, in this case, is to have the FilteredEventHandler.FakeEventHandler method pass its 'this' reference to the RealEventHandler. This involves changing the signature of the RealEventHandler to either take another parameter:
public void RealEventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e, FilteredEventHandler filter);
or changing it to take an EventArgs subclass that you create that holds a reference to the FilteredEventHandler. This is the better way to do it
public void RealEventHandler(object sender, FilteredEventArgs e);
//Also change the signature of the FilteredEventHandler constructor:
public FilteredEventHandler(Func<bool> supressEvent, EventHandler<FilteredEventArgs> eventToRaise)
{
//. . .
}
//Finally, change the FakeEventHandler method to call the real event and pass a reference to itself
this.realEvent(sender, new FilteredEventArgs(e, this)); //Pass the original event args + a reference to this specific FilteredEventHandler
Now the RealEventHandler that gets called can unsubscribe itself because it has a reference to the correct FilteredEventHandler object that got passed in to its parameters.
My final advice, though is to not do any of this! Neolisk nailed it in the comments. Doing something complicated like this is a sign that there's a problem with the design. It will be difficult for anybody who needs to maintain this code in the future (even you, suprisingly!) to figure out the non-standard plumbing involved.
Usually when you're subscribing to events, you do it once and forget it - especially in a GUI program.

You can do it with reflection ...
public static void UnregisterAllEvents(object objectWithEvents)
{
Type theType = objectWithEvents.GetType();
//Even though the events are public, the FieldInfo associated with them is private
foreach (System.Reflection.FieldInfo field in theType.GetFields(System.Reflection.BindingFlags.NonPublic | System.Reflection.BindingFlags.Instance))
{
//eventInfo will be null if this is a normal field and not an event.
System.Reflection.EventInfo eventInfo = theType.GetEvent(field.Name);
if (eventInfo != null)
{
MulticastDelegate multicastDelegate = field.GetValue(objectWithEvents) as MulticastDelegate;
if (multicastDelegate != null)
{
foreach (Delegate _delegate in multicastDelegate.GetInvocationList())
{
eventInfo.RemoveEventHandler(objectWithEvents, _delegate);
}
}
}
}
}

You could just disable the container where all these controls are put in. For example, if you put them in a GroupBox or Panel simply use: groupbox.Enabled = false; or panel.Enabled = false;. You could also disable the form From1.Enabled = false; and show a wait cursor. You can still copy and paste these controls in a container other than the form.

Multiple Invokes off of one Delegate

At the moment I am in the process of building a custom button handler (I needed to integrate the kinect into the button system which also used a mouse) then I got to a horrible thing called Event Handling.. at least an hour yelling at my pc :P. I was wondering, before I go and spend a while changing my system to allow for my new want, which is to have multiple events per handler, I was wondering, is the way I'm going to try work (I would just try, but I'm getting off for the night, so my hope is that I can save some time when I boot the computer up tomorrow and not attempt if my system isn't designed for it)
Also, ive seen a getInvoc list or somthing like that before when I was coding.. Would I add multiple delegates onto it then get that list and itterate over it?
On previous examples I had seen where people used:
public event EventHandler myEventHandler;
I had to use:
private Dictionary<BtnEvent, Delegate> m_events;
and then they did the following to add a handler (their way, not mine):
myObj.myEventHandler += delegate(object sender, EventArgs ea)
{
//do stuff on event
};
first.. If they ran this twice, once with funcA and second with funcb would it run both? or just one?
second, if I applied that logic of += to a Delegate would it work? (I had to use Delegate as I was storing the handlers inside of a dictionary, this allowed for logical access to handlers through use of an enum)
(my code)
private Dictionary<BtnEvent, Delegate> m_events;
//....
m_events = new Dictionary<BtnEvent, Delegate>(6);
m_events.Add(BtnEvent.CLICK_ENTER, null);
m_events.Add(BtnEvent.CLICK_LEAVE, null);
m_events.Add(BtnEvent.CLICK_STAY, null);
m_events.Add(BtnEvent.HOVER_ENTER, null);
m_events.Add(BtnEvent.HOVER_LEAVE, null);
m_events.Add(BtnEvent.HOVER_STAY, null);
//....
public bool addHandle(BtnEvent stateToGet, Delegate function)
{
bool success = false;
if(m_events.ContainsKey(stateToGet))
{
m_events[stateToGet] = function;
}
return(success);
}
// CHANGE ABOVE TO:
public bool addHandle(BtnEvent stateToGet, Delegate function)
{
bool success = false;
if(m_events.ContainsKey(stateToGet))
{
m_events[stateToGet] += function;
}
return(success);
}
Will changing m_events[stateToGet] = function; to m_events[stateToGet] += function; allow me to have multiple event handles (functions I passed to addHandle) be called through the following code?
private void ExecuteEvent(BtnEvent currEvent)
{
if(m_events.ContainsKey(currEvent))
{
if(m_events[currEvent] != null)
{
m_events[currEvent].DynamicInvoke(null);
}
}
}

Please see below code which answers your first question:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
this.Load += new EventHandler(Form1_Load);
}
void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
funcA();
funcB();
}
private void funcA()
{
button1.Click += new EventHandler(button1_Click);
}
private void funcB()
{
button1.Click += new EventHandler(button1_Click);
}
void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show("I am in event handler");
}
}
On clicking the Button, "I am in event handler" message is shown twice which means += operator works in similar way with delegates as it works with integers or strings. It simply adds the function handler to the queue and upon execution of events, calls all the function pointers in queue.
Regarding your second question, I think you wont achieve the expected behavior by changing = to +=. What I understand from your statement is that, you wish to execute multiple events handlers like CLICK_ENTER, CLICK_LEAVE on calling ExecuteEvent() function. However, since you are storing event handlers and their delegates in a Dictionary, changing = to += will only work in the same way as illustrated in above code.