I have an application where I would like to execute certain orders on a certain thread when that thread is idling. So I created a manager to handle this for me, launched of a form.show and created a thread manager:
public class ThreadManager
{
static List<ThreadAble> orders = new List<ThreadAble>();
public static bool running = false;
public static void execute(ThreadAble action)
{
orders.Add(action);
}
public static void RegisterAPIThreadAndHold()
{
running = true;
Application.Idle += Application_Idle;
}
private static void Application_Idle(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (orders.Count != 0)
{
ThreadAble f = orders.First();
orders.Remove(f);
f.execute();
}
}
}
public interface ThreadAble {
void execute();
}
public static class formstuff{
private static void ShowDialogThreaded(){
form.Show(owner);
ThreadManager.RegisterAPIThreadAndHold();
}
}
}
I then try to use this using it by:
public class TestRegister : ThreadAble
{
public void execute()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
ThreadManager.execute(new TestRegister());
Now this should throw an exception, however it doesn't. I have also tried with more complicated behaviour and breakpoints but this code seems to never get executed. Am I misunderstanding how the Application_Idle works? Is there another way to make it so that this thread starts executing my code (has to be this thread) when it's done with handling the GUI code and not doing anything else (it might be required to do other things a well).
I already veritfied that RegisterAPIThreadAndHold() is executed.
Related
Preconditions:
I have to fix synchonization issues in very big legacy spaghetty codebase. There are some classes that must be synchronized. But there are lots of usages for these classes. It is why I am looking for way to catch issues with debug guards.
There is one of ideas to report problem in usage of some classes.
Class for debug purposes:
public class AsyncChecker {
private readonly Thread myThread;
private volatile bool myTurnedOn;
public AsyncChecker() {
myThread = Thread.CurrentThread;
myTurnedOn = false;
}
public void turnOn() {
myTurnedOn = true;
}
public void checkThread() {
if ( myTurnedOn && Thread.CurrentThread != myThread ) {
Debug.LogError( "illegal thread" );
}
}
public void checkMultiThreadSafety() {
if ( myTurnedOn ) {
//there is code that can determine if method called from critical
//section or not even if we call from the same thread
//Monitor.IsEntered( ) works only if there is call from another thread
}
}
}
Some legacy class that can or cannot be accessed in concurrency:
public class SomeLogic {
private readonly AsyncChecker myAsyncChecker = new AsyncChecker();
public void logicOne() {
myAsyncChecker.checkMultiThreadSafety();
//some logic A
}
public void logicTwo() {
myAsyncChecker.checkMultiThreadSafety();
//some logic B
}
}
There is purpose:
public void someMethodInDeepLegacyCode() {
lock (someLock) {
someLogicClassInstance.logicOne();
}
}
public void anotherSomeMethodInDeepLegacyCode() {
someLogicClassInstance.logicTwo(); //there is access without synchronization,
//would like to have exception, or assertion, or error log or something else
}
Monitor.IsEntered can be used only partially. Only if we called from different thread but not for the same.
There are two classes that interact in this problem. I'd like to note I'm using Unity:
TaskHandler
public class TaskHandler{
public event Action<GameObject> TaskResponses;
private void Update(){
if (someCondition){
TaskResponses?.Invoke(taskObj);
}
}
}
TaskBase
public class TaskBase: MonoBehaviour{
private TaskHandler taskHandler;
private void Start(){
taskHandler = gameObject.GetComponent<TaskHandler>();
taskHandler.TaskResponses += TaskResponse;
}
private void TaskResponse(GameObject taskObj){
//if check so that only specific TaskResponses run.
if (taskObj == gameObject){
//functions
}
}
}
The problem I'm facing is with methods that extend TaskResponse().
public class SpecificTask{
public override void TaskResponse(GameObject taskObj)
{
base.TaskResponse(taskObj);
//another if check
if (taskObj == thisTaskObj){
//some other functionality
}
}
}
I don't want to do another if check. I tried the following:
public class TaskBase: MonoBehaviour{
//Start() method omitted
private void TaskResponse(GameObject taskObj){
//if check so that only specific TaskResponses run.
if (taskObj == gameObject){
//functions
}
else{
//Effectively stops code from SpecificTask to continue running,
//But other Actions are no longer called.
return;
}
}
}
But the return statement stops TaskReponses() from other classes to run. By that, I mean that if I had Class Task1 and Task2, and Task1's TaskResponse() runs first, but it runs the else statement, it stops and does not run Task2's TaskResponse().
How can I improve my code to stop writing repetitive if checks, while have my code check all Action like I want it to? Should I not be using event for this scenario at all?
Thank you!
You could make it not void but rather bool which indicates if the method was successfully terminated or aborted like e.g.
public class TaskBase
{
public virtual bool TaskResponse(GameObject taskObj)
{
if(taskObj != thisObj) return false;
// Default stuff to happen
return true;
}
}
Then you can do
public class MyTask
{
public override bool TaskResponse (GameObject taskObj)
{
if(!base.TaskResponse(taskObj)) return false;
// Default stuff already happened
// Now you can add additional stuff here
return true;
}
}
Alternatively if you want to avoid that if check entirely what I also do often is using separate methods like
public class TaskBase
{
public void TaskResponse (GameObject taskObj)
{
if(taskObj != thisObj) return;
TaskResponseInternal();
}
protected virtual void TaskResponseInternal()
{
// Default stuff to happen
}
}
And then simply override that instead
public class MyTask
{
protected override void TaskResponseInternal ()
{
// If you want also the default stuff
base.TaskResponseInternal();
// Additional stuff to happen
}
}
I am working with background workers to update a progress bar in a WPF UI I am working on. This background worker is getting its progress updates from multiple events that I am subscribed to, because the progress bar goes through several loading stages, and the percentages for those come from several places. here is some example/pseudo code explaining what I mean
The DoWork method of my background worker and the methods I am using to currently get some progress updates
// These are working fine
private void BwOnDoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs doWorkEventArgs)
{
orderProcessing.OnOrderProgress += OrderStatus;
orderProcessing.OnStandardOrderProgress += StandardOrderStatus;
orderProcessing.CreateOrders(orders);
}
private void OrderStatus(int currentCount, int totalItems, string Message)
{
if (totalItems > 0)
bw.ReportProgress(Convert.ToInt32(((double)currentCount / (double)totalItems) * 100),
Message);
}
private void StandardOrderStatus(int currentCount, int totalItems, string Message)
{
if (totalItems > 0)
bw.ReportProgress(Convert.ToInt32(((double)currentCount / (double)totalItems) * 100),
Message);
}
Some code from my order processing class
public abstract class OrderProcessing
{
public delegate void OrderProgress(int CurrentItems, int TotalItems, string Message);
public event MasterSalesOrder.StandardOrderProgress OnStandardOrderProgress;
public event OrderProgress OnOrderProgress;
public abstract List<MasterSalesOrder> CreateOrders(List<Order> orders);
}
Some code from the class that holds the override method for CreateOrders()
public abstract class OrderProcessingFile : OrderProcessing
{
public event OrderProgress OnOrderProgress;
public override List<MasterSalesOrder> CreateOrders(List<Order> orders)
{
//Does Some Stuff
foreach(var stuff in stuffs)
{
OnOrderProgress(currentCount, totalCount, "Message");
}
}
}
Since I am clearly not explaining this well, I need to get info from the OrderProcessingFiles OnOrderProgress event via the OrderProcessing class that I create in the DoWork method.I am unsure on how to subscribe to an event when my code never directly instantiates an instance of the OrderProcessingFile class and it is never directly referred to.
I have tried looking for answers but as my title will show I am having a hard time even wording this in a way to get useful results, and I am genuinely stuck on this one. Let me know if more detail is needed, I tried to strip down my code to only the relevant parts but I feel like I'm explaining this strangely.
I would recommend that you create a thread safe singleton progress manager. Then have each of the background workers contact it with updates. The progress manager will use a DispatcherTimer (which runs on the GUI thread) to update the GUI appropriately.
Raw example:
public static class StatusReportManager
{
// Standard singleton code to create the manager and access it.
// Start/create the dispatch time as well.
private static DispatcherTimer Timer { get; set; }
private static object _syncObject = new object();
public static void ReportStatus(...)
{
lock (_syncObject)
{
// Process any states and set instance properties for reading
// by the timer operation.
}
}
private void ShowStatus() // Used by the dispatch timer
{
lock (_syncObject)
{
// Do any updates to the GUI in here from current state.
}
}
}
I have realized what it is I was really trying to do and have thus found an answer. Using the method found in this MSDN article I have implemented the follow code:
This is my UI
private void BwOnDoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs doWorkEventArgs)
{
orderProcessing.OnOrderProgress += OrderStatus;
orderProcessing.CreateOrders(FanGlobal.BrandItems, FanGlobal.BrandItemMasterCustomers);
}
private void OrderStatus(object obj, OrderProcessing.OrderProgressEventArgs e)
{
if (e.totalCount > 0)
bw.ReportProgress(Convert.ToInt32(((double)e.currentCount / (double)e.totalCount) * 100),e.message);
}
This in my OrderProcessing class
public event EventHandler<OrderProgressEventArgs> OnOrderProgress;
public class OrderProgressEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public int currentCount;
public int totalCount;
public string message;
public OrderProgressEventArgs(int c, int t, string m)
{
currentCount = c;
totalCount = t;
message = m;
}
}
protected virtual void OnOrderProgressChanged(OrderProgressEventArgs e)
{
EventHandler<OrderProgressEventArgs> handler = OnOrderProgress;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, e);
}
}
public abstract List<MasterSalesOrder> CreateOrders(List<BrandItem> BrandItems = null, List<BrandItemMasterCustomer> BrandItemMasterCustomers = null);
and then I can use it in my child class OrderProcessingFile like so
public override List<MasterSalesOrder> CreateOrders(List<BrandItem> BrandItems = null, List<BrandItemMasterCustomer> BrandItemMasterCustomers = null)
{
//Do some Stuff
OnOrderProgressChanged(new OrderProgressEventArgs(count, totalItems, "Extracting"));
}
and everything is working like a charm. Sorry for the utterly confusing question and the apparent huge gap of knowledge I have/had, but hopefully this will help someone else in the future.
When using the StartNew() method to kick off a process on a new thread, I need to figure out how to make another call into this object in that same thread (I assume this would be some sort of Join operation?).
The following example is dumbed down to illustrate the meat of what I am trying to do. I am well aware it is severely lacking in basic concurrency considerations. But I didn't want to cloud the code with all of that logic, so please forgive me on that.
The following console app shows what I am trying to accomplish. Assume on the StartNew() call a new thread with ID 9976 is created and the method invoked there. I would like the subsequent call to ProcessImmediate() in the file system watcher change event handler to be made on thread 9976 as well. As it stands, the call would share the same thread that is used for the file system watcher change event.
Can this be done, and if so, how?
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var runner = new Runner();
runner.Run();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class Runner
{
private Activity _activity = null;
private FileSystemWatcher _fileSystemWatcher;
public void Run()
{
_activity = new Activity();
// start activity on a new thread
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _activity.Go());
_fileSystemWatcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
_fileSystemWatcher.Filter = "*.watcher";
_fileSystemWatcher.Path = "c:\temp";
_fileSystemWatcher.Changed += FileSystemWatcher_Changed;
_fileSystemWatcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
private void FileSystemWatcher_Changed(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
// WANT TO CALL THIS FOR ACTIVITY RUNNING ON PREVIOUSLY CALLED THREAD
_activity.ProcessImmediate();
}
}
public class Activity
{
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
// for purposes of this example, assume that Go is magically in its sleep state when ProcessImmediate is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
}
}
* UPDATE *
Thanks for the excellent responses. I took Mike's suggestion and implemented it for my console app. Below is the full working code which also includes the use of a cancellation token. I post this in case someone else might find it useful.
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var runner = new Runner();
runner.Run();
Console.ReadKey();
runner.Stop();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class Runner
{
private Activity _activity = null;
private FileSystemWatcher _fileSystemWatcher;
private CancellationTokenSource _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
public void Stop() { _cts.Cancel(); }
public void Run()
{
_activity = new Activity();
// start activity on a new thread
var task = new Task(() => _activity.Go(_cts.Token), _cts.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
task.Start();
_fileSystemWatcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
_fileSystemWatcher.Filter = "*.watcher";
_fileSystemWatcher.Path = "C:\\Temp\\FileSystemWatcherPath";
_fileSystemWatcher.Changed += FileSystemWatcher_Changed;
_fileSystemWatcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
private void FileSystemWatcher_Changed(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
// WANT TO CALL THIS FOR ACTIVITY RUNNING ON PREVIOUSLY CALLED THREAD
_activity.ProcessImmediate();
}
}
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void Go(CancellationToken ct)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Name = "Go";
while (!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(5000);
}
Console.WriteLine("Exiting");
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting()
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Doing Something Interesting on thread {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId));
}
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
// for purposes of this example, assume that Go is magically in its sleep state when ProcessImmediate is called
_processing.Set();
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}
}
First, you should use TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning if you are creating a task that will not complete quickly. Second, use an AutoResetEvent to signal the waiting thread to wake up. Note that below ProcessImmediate will return before DoSomethingInteresting has completed running on the other thread. Example:
using System.Threading;
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(2000);
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
_processing.Set();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}
User mike has given a better solution, which will be appropriate when you like to call the same method immediately. If you want to call a different methods immediately I'll expand mike's answer to achieve that.
using System.Threading;
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private ConcurrentQueue<Action> actionsToProcess = new ConcurrentQueue<Action>();
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(2000);
while(!actionsToProcess.IsEmpty)
{
Action action;
if(actionsToProcess.TryDeque(out action))
action();
}
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate(Action action)
{
actionsToProcess.Enqueue(action);
_processing.Set();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}
To execute different methods on the same thread you can use a message loop that dispatches incoming requests. A simple option would be to use the event loop scheduler of the Reactive Extensions and to "recursively" schedule your Go() function - if in the mean time a different operation is scheduled it would be processed before the next Go() operation.
Here is a sample:
class Loop
: IDisposable
{
IScheduler scheduler = new EventLoopScheduler();
MultipleAssignmentDisposable stopper = new MultipleAssignmentDisposable();
public Loop()
{
Next();
}
void Next()
{
if (!stopper.IsDisposed)
stopper.Disposable = scheduler.Schedule(Handler);
}
void Handler()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Handler: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
Next();
}
public void Notify()
{
scheduler.Schedule(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Notify: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
});
}
public void Dispose()
{
stopper.Dispose();
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var l = new Loop())
{
Console.WriteLine("Press 'q' to quit.");
while (Console.ReadKey().Key != ConsoleKey.Q)
l.Notify();
}
}
In it's simplicity what I am trying to do is handle "Doing Something" by firing off a process on a seperate thread to do what I need to do and waiting for an event to be raised to say "I have finished doing what I need to do". In the EventArgs though I will have a property for any errors which may be encountered during the process. Here is a simplified example of my situation.
public class MessageHandler
{
private AutoResetEvent MessageHasSent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void SendMessage()
{
MessageSender ms = new MessageSender();
ms.MessageSent += new EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs>(MessageHandler_MessageSent);
Thread t = new Thread(ms.Send());
t.Start();
MessageHasSent.WaitOne();
//Do some check here
//Same again but for "Message recieved"
}
void MessageHandler_MessageSent(object sender, MessageSentEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Errors.Count != 0)
{
//What can I do here to return to the next step after waitone?
}
else
MessageHasSent.Set();
}
}
public class MessageSender
{
public event EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs> MessageSent;
public void Send()
{
//Do some method which could potentiallialy return a List<Error>
MessageSent(this, new MessageSentEventArgs() { Errors = new List<Error>() });
}
}
public class Error { }
public class MessageSentEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public List<Error> Errors;
}
Essentially once the event has been raised from Send the code will continute, however I want some way of the event giving feedback, potentially using the MessageHasSent. I have tried different methods, I thought if I called Close instead of Set it would perhaps allow me to access something such as IsClosed. You could throw an exception or set a flag outside of the scope of the event to check but I feel like this is dirty.
Any suggestions?
Using the TPL isn't applicable in my case as I am using .NET 3.5.
Since it seems that this entire section of code is already running in a background thread, and you're doing nothing more than starting up a new thread just so that you can wait for it to finish, you'd be better off just calling Send directly, rather than asynchronously.
You don't need to fire off an event when you're completed.
You don't need to signal the main thread when it needs to continue.
You don't need to log the exceptions in a List, you can just throw them and catch them in SendMessage with a try/catch block.
This will do what you want:
public class MessageHandler
{
private AutoResetEvent MessageHasSent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private bool IsSuccess = false;
public void SendMessage()
{
MessageSender ms = new MessageSender();
ms.MessageSent += new EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs>(MessageHandler_MessageSent);
Thread t = new Thread(ms.Send());
t.Start();
MessageHasSent.WaitOne();
if(IsSuccess)
//wohooo
else
//oh crap
//Same again but for "Message recieved"
}
void MessageHandler_MessageSent(object sender, MessageSentEventArgs e)
{
IsSuccess = e.Errors.Count == 0;
MessageHasSent.Set();
}
}
public class MessageSender
{
public event EventHandler<MessageSentEventArgs> MessageSent;
public void Send()
{
//Do some method which could potentiallialy return a List<Error>
MessageSent(this, new MessageSentEventArgs() { Errors = new List<Error>() });
}
}
public class Error { }
public class MessageSentEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public List<Error> Errors;
}