I am using Ninject 3.2.2.0 and I am trying to bind an async method.
This is what I got so far:
kernel.Bind<Task<MyInterface>>().ToMethod(async ctx =>
{
var someData = await DoSomethingAsync();
return new SomethingElse(someData);
}).InRequestScope();
My method DoSomethingAsync never gets called. I believe it's not being called because MyInterface is being requested, not Task<MyInterface>.
Any ideas?
The construction of your object graph should be reliable and fast. This excludes doing anything that is I/O related. This means that you should not do anything that is asynchronous at all.
Instead anything that is slow, unreliable or asynchronous should be postponed untill after the object graph is constructed.
I ended up making my binding sync
kernel.Bind<MyInterface>().ToMethod(ctx =>
{
var someData = DoSomethingSync(); // <-- Made this one sync, see method below
return new SomethingElse(someData);
}).InRequestScope();
Here is the 'magic'. I changed my method from:
private async Task<string> DoSomethingAsync() {
var result = await DoSomethingElseAsync();
return result;
}
To
private string DoSomethingSync() {
string result = null;
var runSync = Task.Factory.StartNew(async () => {
result = await DoSomethingElseAsync();
}).Unwrap();
runSync.Wait();
return result;
}
I know performance is affected because of the context switch, but at least it works as expected and you can be sure that it won't deadlock.
Related
Imagine this is a method performing a DB query and returning a result, which in case of null is replaced with a default value (Null object pattern).
public ResultObj Get()
{
var result = dbContext.GetSomeResult();
return result ?? ResultObj.NullValue;
}
Imagine this DB query is a long-running process, so I would use async/await to execute this process in a separate thread. Suppose that the dbContext.GetSomeResultAsync() method is available.
How can be this method converted in an asynchronous one so that I can write something like this?
var resultTask = GetAsync();
var otherResultTask = GetSomethingElseAsync();
Task.WaitAll(resultTask, otherResultTask);
var myResult = resultTask.Result;
var myOtherResult = otherResultTask.Result;
I tried this solution.
public async Task<ResultObj> GetAsync()
{
var result = await dbContext.GetSomeResultAsync();
return result ?? ResultObj.NullValue;
}
First, I'm wondering why this code compiles: why can I return ResultObj when Task<ResultObj> is expected?
Second, this code predictably results in a deadlock, as clearly explained by the great number of resources about async deadlocks anti-patterns. The deadlock can be prevented by using .ConfigureAwait(false) method after the async call. Is this the right way to go? Are there any hidden drawbacks in this case? Is it a general rule?
I also tried this.
public async Task<ResultObj> GetAsync()
{
return await Task.Run(() => {
var result = dbContext.GetSomeResult();
return result ?? ResultObj.NullValue;
});
}
This results in a deadlock, too. This time I cannot even figure out why.
Edit: possible solution
Finally, after having read this, I found a solution to my problem.
My generic query wrapper method is like this.
public async Task<ResultObj> GetAsync()
{
var result = await dbContext.GetSomeResultAsync();
return result ?? ResultObj.NullValue;
}
On calling method, I use this pattern.
public async Task<CollectedResults> CollectAsync()
{
var resultTask = GetAsync();
var otherResultTask = GetSomethingElseAsync();
//here both queries are being executed.
//...in the while, optionally, here some other synchronous actions
//then, await results
var result = await resultTask;
var otherResult = await otherResultTask;
//here process collected results and return
return new CollectedResults(...);
}
It is worth mentioning that the above code, wrapped in a domain class, is called by a Controller action. In order for this to work I had to make async the methods all the way up, until Controller action, which now appears as follows.
public async Task<CollectedResults> Get()
{
return await resultsCollector.CollectAsync();
}
This way, deadlock doesn't happen anymore and execution time greatly improves with respect to the synchronous version.
I don't know if this is the canonical way of executing parallel queries. But it works and I don't see particular pitfalls in the code.
First of all, regarding :
so I would use async/await to execute this process in a separate thread.
There is no new thread created when we use async and await
Secondly:
why can I return ResultObj when Task is expected?
the Task<TResult> as return type of method tells that it returns a Task of type TResult but we need to return object of type that TResult back from it so the method can be awaited and when using Task<TResult> as reutrn type we should be using async and await to do the work.
Lastly:
this code predictably results in a deadlock
You are using async keyword with method signatures and also await the next async method call being done from within the method. So apparently it looks like the code in first example you have posted shouldn't be deadlocked, if the method GetSomeResultAsync you are consuming is really a async method and is properly implemented.
I suggest to study more about the async await before getting in to it, following is a good article to start with:
https://blog.stephencleary.com/2012/02/async-and-await.html
I have an async method which works when I call it as follows:
var result = await someClass.myAsyncMethod(someParameter);
Is it possible to do something like this, but in one line of code?
var task = someClass.myAsyncMethod(someParameter);
task.RunSynchronously();
var result = task.Result;
Yes you can do it using the Result property directly after the calling of method:
var result = someClass.myAsyncMethod(someParameter).Result;
and a more better way is to wrap it in Task.Run() to avoid deadlocks like:
var result = Task.Run(() => {
return someClass.myAsyncMethod(someParameter);
}).Result;
I also found this RunSynchronously() method on MSDN, but that won't server your question as you want a on liner simple code.
If you find yourself doing this often you can write a small extension
public static class TaskExtensions
{
public static T SyncResult<T>(this Task<T> task)
{
task.RunSynchronously();
return task.Result;
}
}
Then you can use:
var result = Task.SyncResult();
I have the following code:
var result = MessageBoxHelper.MsgBox
.ShowAsync("Press Yes to proceed", MessageBoxButton.YesNo)
.ContinueWith((answer) =>
{
if (answer.Result == MessageBoxResult.Yes)
{
Task<bool> asyncTask = ExecuteAsyncFunc();
//asyncTask.Unwrap(); ??
asyncTask.ContinueWith((a) =>
{
// More
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
}
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
}
Invoked elsewhere like this:
public async Task<bool> ExecuteAsyncFunc()
{
await CallAnotherAsyncFunction();
}
I believe that I need to call Unwrap(), where I have tried to, because I am calling await inside a ContinueWith() block. However, I get the following error when I uncomment it:
Error CS1929 'Task' does not contain a definition for 'Unwrap'
and the best extension method overload
'TaskExtensions.Unwrap(Task)' requires a receiver of type
'Task'
Do I need to use Unwrap in this context, and if so, what am I doing wrong?
The short answer is to use await instead of ContinueWith:
var result = MessageBoxHelper.MsgBox.ShowAsync("Press Yes to proceed", MessageBoxButton.YesNo);
if (answer == MessageBoxResult.Yes)
{
var a = await ExecuteAsyncFunc();
// More
}
The long answer is that ContinueWith has some dangerous default options (including using an ambient TaskScheduler), and await automatically does everything correctly for you. I go into more detail on my blog.
Do I need to use Unwrap in this context, and if so, what am I doing
wrong?
You need to Unwrap only when your return type is a Task<Task>, and you actually want to do something with the inner task.
For example:
Task<Task> exampleTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
});
If I wanted to actually asynchronously wait on the inner Task, i'd call Unwrap and await on that:
Task exampleTask = await Task.Factory.StartNew(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
}).Unwrap();
If for any reason you'd want to await on any task returned from your continuation, or want to monitor the inner task, then you'd call Unwrap. There is no need to do that here.
What you're doing is simply invoking an async method inside your ContinueWith, but it doesn't seem like you want to await the result at all.
I'd recommend using async-await wherever possible to reduce the verbosity of ContinueWith. Mixing those two together usually yields bad results as thing get rather complicated. Refactoring that code ends up much cleaner with much less cyclomatic complexity:
var result = await MessageBoxHelper.MsgBox.ShowAsync("Press Yes to proceed",
MessageBoxButton.YesNo);
if (result == MessageBoxResult.Yes)
{
bool answer = await ExecuteFuncAsync();
}
You say that you have to call unwrap due to your using await inside the ContinueWith; I don't actually see you using await though. I assume what you meant is that you want to await but are not sure how, and thus thought unwrapping is needed. If that is the case, then what you want is to just make your nested Task awaitable. You can do that by making the delegate you provide async
var result = MessageBoxHelper.MsgBox
.ShowAsync("Press Yes to proceed", MessageBoxButton.YesNo)
.ContinueWith(async (answer) =>
{
if (answer.Result == MessageBoxResult.Yes)
{
await ExecuteAsyncFunc();
}
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
public async Task<bool> ExecuteAsyncFunc()
{
await CallAnotherAsyncFunction();
}
This allows you to await within the delegate, within the ContinueWith call and not have to deal with unwrapping.
If you are going to do anything with the Task, such as return it without unwrapping, then this is the right way to go.
public Task<BoolOrSomeOtherReturnType> Foo()
{
return MessageBoxHelper.MsgBox
.ShowAsync /* Continue with etc here */
}
But if you are going to act on the results within the Foo method, then there is no need to use ContinueWith, just await it.
public async Task<bool> Foo()
{
var result = await MessageBoxHelper.MsgBox
.ShowAsync("Press Yes to proceed", MessageBoxButton.YesNo);
if (result == MessageBoxResult.Yes)
{
await ExecuteAsyncFunc();
return true;
}
return false;
}
That simplifies your code quiet a bit. The other thing to note is that your ExecuteAsyncFunc() method does not act on the return value. You simply await and do nothing else.
I noticed that you're not returning true/false, so I assume there is more code there that you just omitted for clarity sake. If that isn't the case, you can save yourself some overhead and just return the Task, allowing someone further up the callstack to await it instead. If your call to CallAnotherAsyncFunction returns Task<bool> then you can just return that call in the same way as well. You only need to await if you have to prevent the method from going any further so you can react to the result of the awaited method. If you don't have to, just return the Task.
public Task<bool> ExecuteAsyncFunc()
{
return CallAnotherAsyncFunction();
}
I know it has been asked a lot, but my problem is, that my method won't wait for the request to be completet, even though i have implemented a TaskCompletionSource, which should have done the job, but it doesn't.
public DecksViewModel(bool local)
{
DList = new List<Deck>();
if (local)
InitializeLocalDeckList();
else
{
Dereffering();
}
}
public async void Dereffering()
{
var e = await InitilaizeWebDeckList();
List<DeckIn> decksIn = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<DeckIn>>(e);
foreach (DeckIn d in decksIn)
{
Deck dadd = new Deck();
dadd.CardCount = 0;
dadd.Name = d.name;
dadd.PicturePath = d.image;
dadd.InstallDirectory = false;
DList.Add(dadd);
}
DataSource = AlphaKeyGroup<Deck>.CreateGroups(DList, System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentUICulture, (Deck s) => { return s.Name; }, true);
}
public Task<String> InitilaizeWebDeckList()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<string>();
var client = new RestClient("blabla.com");
var request = new RestRequest("");
request.AddHeader("Authorization", "Basic blabla");
client.ExecuteAsync(request, response =>
{
test = response.Content;
tcs.SetResult(response.Content);
});
return tcs.Task;
}
So when I call the DecksViewModel constructor, I asyncally try to request the data from a webserver and fill the model.
The point is, that the corresponding view "doesn't wait" for the request to fill the model, so it's displayed empty.
I use the
List<AlphaKeyGroup<Deck>> DataSource
to fill a LongListSelector via DataBinding. But DataSource isn't yet set, when it is binded.
I hope you can help
You're calling an async method without awaiting it inside the constructor. That's why "it doesn't wait" (because it has nothing to wait on).
It's usually a bad idea to call an async method inside the constructor for that reason combined with the fact that constructors can't be async.
You should redesign your solution accordingly. An option is to have an async static method that creates an instance and awaits the procedure:
public static async Task CreateInstance(bool local)
{
var model = new DecksViewModel();
if (local)
{
await InitializeLocalDeckList();
}
else
{
await Dereffering();
}
}
That would allow you to not use async void which should only be used in UI even handlers.
You can read more about other options in Stephen Cleary's blog
You are using async void, which means nobody's gonna wait for that. It's just fire and forget.
I see some misunderstanding in the async keyword here:
Your code will only wait for the result of an async method, if you use await. Otherwise that call will just start the async method, but you don't know when it is actually gonna run.
You cannot use await in constructors though.
I'm using .NET 4.0, so I can't use the async/await keywords.
After I laboriously set up tasks and continuations instead of just calling .Result, all I got for my efforts was a mess and it runs 46% slower on a workload of a few dozen HTTP GETs. (I get similar perf degradation if I call the workload in serial or in a Parallel loop)
What must I do to see any performance benefit?
//Slower code
public UserProfileViewModel GetAsync(Guid id)
{
UserProfileViewModel obj = null;//Closure
Task result = client.GetAsync(id.ToString()).ContinueWith(responseMessage =>
{
Task<string> stringTask = responseMessage.Result
.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
Task continuation = stringTask.ContinueWith(responseBody =>
{
obj = JsonConvert
.DeserializeObject<UserProfileViewModel>(responseBody.Result);
});
//This is a child task, must wait before returning to parent.
continuation.Wait();
});
result.Wait();
return obj;
}
//Faster code
public UserProfileViewModel GetSynchr(Guid id)
{
//Asych? What's is that?
HttpResponseMessage response = client.GetAsync(id.ToString()).Result;
string responseBody = response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().Result;
return JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<UserProfileViewModel>(responseBody);
}
You are using "async" methods but doing everything synchronously. That certainly won't be any better than doing everything synchronously with the synchronous methods.
Take a look at this:
public Task<UserProfileViewModel> GetAsync(Guid id)
{
var uri = id.ToString();
return client.GetAsync(uri).ContinueWith(responseTask =>
{
var response = responseTask.Result;
return response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().ContinueWith(jsonTask =>
{
var json = jsonTask.Result;
return JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<UserProfileViewModel>(json);
});
}).Unwrap();
}
Notice how the method returns a Task and the continuations are returned from the method. This allows your method to return almost instantly, giving the caller a handle to the running work and whatever continuations need to happen. The returned task will only be complete once everything is done, and it's result will be your UserProfileViewModel.
The Unwrap method takes a Task<Task<UserProfileViewModel>> and turns it into a Task<UserProfileViewModel>.