static void Main(string[] args)
{
bool bMethod1 = Metthod1();
bool bMethod2 = Metthod2();
bool bMethod3 = Metthod3();
if (!bMethod1 || !bMethod2 || !bMethod3)
{
//RollBack
}
}
I have a situation, where I want to rollback the work done by methods if any of the method returns false. I'm not doing any database related activity in my code, So is there any way to rollback/undo changes in C# 4.0 or above.
I tried to use TransactionScope, but its not doing rollback.
Other way I have thought of implementing my own rollback method which will manually undo all the changes(like if the file is copied, I will check the destination file and delete it using code). So is there any other workaround to solve this?
I have tried this so far.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())
{
bool bMethod1 = Metthod1();
bool bMethod2 = Metthod2();
bool bMethod3 = Metthod3();
if (!bMethod1 || !bMethod2 || !bMethod3)
{
//RollBack
Transaction.Current.Rollback();
}
if (Transaction.Current.TransactionInformation.Status == TransactionStatus.Committed)
{
scope.Complete();
}
}
}
I think you better imlement Command Pattern yourself.
Your 'transaction' if you can say so, basicaly is list of commands. Those commands can be executed only all at once. It is not so complex to implement.
Here is what I used when I needed this behavior:
public struct Command
{
public Action Upgrade;
public Action Downgrade;
}
public static void InvokeSafe(params Command[] commands)
{
var completed = new Stack<Command>();
try
{
foreach (var cmd in commands)
{
cmd.Upgrade();
completed.Push(cmd);
}
}
catch (Exception up)
{
try
{
foreach (var cmd in completed)
{
cmd.Downgrade();
}
}
catch (Exception down)
{
throw new AggregateException(up, down);
}
throw;
}
}
Then you call it like this:
int value = 3;
int modifier = 4;
InvokeSafe(new Command
{
Upgrade = () => { value += modifier; },
Downgrade = () => { value -= modifier; }
},
new Command
{
Upgrade = () => { value *= modifier; },
Downgrade = () => { value /= modifier; }
});
Related
Here is a piece of code, where I try to execute different async methods, that need to be executed in specific order (the await, and Task.WhenAll() parts).
//Some other tasks before
Task<bool> taskIfcQuantityArea = Task.Run<bool>(() =>
{
return this.addGroupStringToDictionary("IfcQuantityArea");
});
Task<bool> taskIfcQuantityLength = Task.Run<bool>(() =>
{
return this.addGroupStringToDictionary("IfcQuantityLength");
});
Task<bool> taskIfcSiUnit = Task.Run<bool>(() =>
{
return addGroupStringToDictionary("IfcSiUnit");
});
Task<bool> taskIfcPropertySingleValue = Task.Run<bool>(() =>
{
return addGroupStringToDictionary("IfcPropertySingleValue");
});
//uses IfcPerson, IfcOrganization
Task<bool> taskIfcPersonAndOrganization = Task.Run<bool>(() =>
{
return addGroupStringToDictionary("IfcPersonAndOrganization");
});
//uses IfcOrganization
Task<bool> taskIfcApplication = Task.Run(async () =>
{
await taskIfcSiUnit;
return addGroupStringToDictionary("IfcApplication");
});
//uses IfcSiUnit
Task<bool> taskIfcMeasureWithUnit = Task.Run(async () =>
{
await taskIfcSiUnit;
return addGroupStringToDictionary("IfcMeasureWithUnit");
});
//some other tasks after.
When I do that job synchronously, all works fine, but when I do it in async, I have some random errors. At every test, the errors come randomly.
The only thing I see that could go wrong, is they all execute the same function addGroupStringToDictionary.
Here is the function :
private bool addGroupStringToDictionary(string typeName)
{
//int processCount = await Task.Run<int>(() =>
//{
GroupedListStrings groupElt = this.listGrouppedStrings.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Type == typeName.ToUpper());
if (groupElt != null)
{
List<string> listStringInGroup = groupElt.ListStrings;
foreach (string line in listStringInGroup)
{
try
{
if(typeName== "IfcLocalPlacement($")
{
typeName = "IfcLocalPlacement";
}
var type = Type.GetType("Ifc."+typeName);
if (typeName == "IfcPropertySingleValue" || typeName == "IfcDirection" || typeName == "IfcSiUnit" || typeName == "IfcQuantityLength" || typeName == "IfcQuantityArea" || typeName == "IfcQuantityVolume" || typeName == "IfcQuantityWeight")
{
try
{
object instance = Activator.CreateInstance(type, line);
this.addToListDictionary((IfcElement)instance);
}
catch
{
}
}
else if (typeName == "IfcOpeningElement")
{
try
{
object instance = Activator.CreateInstance(type, line, this.listDictionaries, this.DictionaryBolts);
this.addToListDictionary((IfcElement)instance);
}
catch
{
}
}
else
{
try
{
object instance = Activator.CreateInstance(type, line, this.listDictionaries);
this.addToListDictionary((IfcElement)instance);
}
catch
{
}
}
}
catch
{
this.addError(line);
}
}
this.listGrouppedStrings.Remove(groupElt);
this.reportProgressImport();
}
//return 100;
//});
this.reportProgressImport();
return true;
}
The catch got 1-2 times over a bit more than 1 million lines.
At each test the errors come randomly.
Is it possible that running the function simultaneously from several async methods, this is what causes the problem?
Here is the addToListDictionary function :
private void addToListDictionary(IfcElement elt)
{
if(elt.ErrorFound)
{
this.listReadButError.Add(elt);
return;
}
string type = elt.GetType().ToString();
if (elt is IfcRepere)
{
type = "Ifc.IfcRepere";
}
else if (elt is IfcRepereType)
{
type = "Ifc.IfcRepereType";
}
else if (elt is IfcPhysicalSimpleQuantity)
{
type = "Ifc.IfcPhysicalSimpleQuantity";
}
else if (elt is IfcProfileDef)
{
type = "Ifc.IfcProfileDef";
}
else if (elt is IfcGeometricRepresentationContext)
{
type = "Ifc.IfcGeometricRepresentationContext";
}
GroupDictionary group = this.ListDictionaries.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name == type);
if(group==null)
{
group = new GroupDictionary { Name = type };
this.ListDictionaries.Add(group);
}
group.ListElements[elt.ID] = elt;
if (elt is IfcMechanicalFastener)
{
IfcMechanicalFastener bolt = (IfcMechanicalFastener)elt;
this.DictionaryBolts[bolt.Tag] = bolt;
}
else if(elt is IfcProject)
{
this.listProjects.Add((IfcProject)elt);
}
else if(elt is IfcElementAssembly ifcAss)
{
this.DictionaryIfcElementAssemblies[ifcAss.Key] = ifcAss;
}
}
Also some additive information about my ListDictionaries :
private List<GroupDictionary> listDictionaries = new List<GroupDictionary>();
public List<GroupDictionary> ListDictionaries { get { return this.listDictionaries; } set { this.listDictionaries = value; } }
And the class GroupDictionary
public class GroupDictionary
{
string name { get; set; }
public string Name { get { return this.name; } set { this.name = value; } }
public ConcurrentDictionary<int, IfcElement> ListElements = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, IfcElement>();
public GroupDictionary()
{
}
}
I made different GroupDictionary because as soon as I don't need one of them, I delete it to free space.
I have one dictionary with IfcPoint, I need it to gt IfcPolyLine (lines), but when I finish to treat all objects using IfcPoint, I clear remove the corresponding GroupDictionary in order to free some memory.
You have a obvious thread-safety issues here (i.e. you are trying to perform some operation which is not thread safe from multiple threads at a time). There are multiple ways you can try tackling it - using locks, or some synchronization primitives.
But in this case it seems that major source of issues is working with standard collections from multiple threads, which is not thread-safe (because thread-safety usually comes with performance price and is not always needed). You can start from switching to appropriate collections from System.Collections.Concurrent namespace.
To go down deeper I recommend free e-book by Joseph Albahari Threading in C#.
Hi I am tryin to use Transactions in my application which coded in MVC.net
I have my dbcontext in a layer and I reach it from a business layer. When I run the code its not giving me any errors but its also not making the transaction at all.
This is my context
public class DB : IDisposable
{
public DB()
{
}
private RootDYSContext _ctx = null;
public RootDYSContext ctx
{
get
{
if (_ctx == null)
_ctx = new RootDYSContext();
return _ctx;
}
set
{
_ctx = value;
}
}
public bool Commit()
{
try
{
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
catch (Exception exp)
{
Mesaj = exp.Message;
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
And this is how I am tryin to do transaction which based on here "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/saving/transactions"
public bool CreateKullanici(VMKullanici
KullaniciData,List<VMRol>RolDataList,VMRol AnaRolData)
{
string mesaj = "";
int kullanici_id;
using (RootDBHelper.DB db = new RootDBHelper.DB())
{
using (var ctx = new RootDBLayer.RootDYSContext())
{
using (DbContextTransaction dbContextTransaction =
ctx.Database.BeginTransaction())
{
try
{
kullanici_id = SaveKullanici(KullaniciData, out
mesaj);
foreach(VMRol rol in RolDataList)
{
VMKullaniciRol KullaniciRolInsertData = new
VMKullaniciRol();
KullaniciRolInsertData.kullanici_id =
kullanici_id;
KullaniciRolInsertData.rol_id = rol.rol_id;
if (rol.rol_id == AnaRolData.rol_id)
KullaniciRolInsertData.ana_rol_mu =
(int)RConstants.EvetHayir.Evet;
else
KullaniciRolInsertData.ana_rol_mu =
(int)RConstants.EvetHayir.Hayir;
bKullaniciRol.SaveKullaniciRol(KullaniciRolInsertData, out mesaj);
}
/*Edit:I think this line made confusion I put this to make sure rollback
dbContextTransaction.Rollback(); */
dbContextTransaction.Commit();
return true;
}
catch
{
dbContextTransaction.Rollback();
return false;
}
}
}
}
}
I expect when I run this I shouldnt get any record at all.I seriously stucked because I dont get any error or any hint at all and this method keeps saving data regardless of rollback.
Thank you in advance.
Edit: I do my save changes part on the insert methods
Adding also code examples for the methods
public int SaveKullanici(VMKullanici KullaniciData, out string mesaj)
{
using (RootDBHelper.DB db = new RootDBHelper.DB())
{
mesaj = "";
PKullanici pKullanici = new PKullanici();
if (KullaniciData.kullanici_id == default(int))
pKullanici.InsertKullanici(db.ctx, KullaniciData);
else
pKullanici.UpdateKullanici(db.ctx, KullaniciData);
if (db.Commit())
{
return KullaniciData.kullanici_id;
}
else
{
mesaj = db.Mesaj;
return -1;
}
}
}
public void InsertKullanici(RootDYSContext ctx, VMKullanici KullaniciData)
{
ctx.TKullanici.Add(KullaniciData.TKullanici);
}
I think your problem is that you do commit and then you want to rollback but you should one thing commit or rollback.
In addition I cant see in your code where you actually doing transaction.commit. Your code has commit function but commit != savechanges.
Idea of transactions (there are different type but) is that you save data to database do some validation or operations and then you say well it looks ok commit or there is an error do rollback.
Also note if you are not do not commit or do rollback then your identity field will get incremented no matter what
I doing a small project to map a network (routers only) using SNMP. In order to speed things up, I´m trying to have a pool of threads responsible for doing the jobs I need, apart from the first job which is done by the main thread.
At this time I have two jobs, one takes a parameter the other doesn´t:
UpdateDeviceInfo(NetworkDevice nd)
UpdateLinks() *not defined yet
What I´m trying to achieve is to have those working threads waiting for a job to
appear on a Queue<Action> and wait while it is empty. The main thread will add the first job and then wait for all workers, which might add more jobs, to finish before starting adding the second job and wake up the sleeping threads.
My problem/questions are:
How to define the Queue<Actions> so that I can insert the methods and the parameters if any. If not possible I could make all functions accept the same parameter.
How to launch the working threads indefinitely. I not sure where should I create the for(;;).
This is my code so far:
public enum DatabaseState
{
Empty = 0,
Learning = 1,
Updating = 2,
Stable = 3,
Exiting = 4
};
public class NetworkDB
{
public Dictionary<string, NetworkDevice> database;
private Queue<Action<NetworkDevice>> jobs;
private string _community;
private string _ipaddress;
private Object _statelock = new Object();
private DatabaseState _state = DatabaseState.Empty;
private readonly int workers = 4;
private Object _threadswaitinglock = new Object();
private int _threadswaiting = 0;
public Dictionary<string, NetworkDevice> Database { get => database; set => database = value; }
public NetworkDB(string community, string ipaddress)
{
_community = community;
_ipaddress = ipaddress;
database = new Dictionary<string, NetworkDevice>();
jobs = new Queue<Action<NetworkDevice>>();
}
public void Start()
{
NetworkDevice nd = SNMP.GetDeviceInfo(new IpAddress(_ipaddress), _community);
if (nd.Status > NetworkDeviceStatus.Unknown)
{
database.Add(nd.Id, nd);
_state = DatabaseState.Learning;
nd.Update(this); // The first job is done by the main thread
for (int i = 0; i < workers; i++)
{
Thread t = new Thread(JobRemove);
t.Start();
}
lock (_statelock)
{
if (_state == DatabaseState.Learning)
{
Monitor.Wait(_statelock);
}
}
lock (_statelock)
{
if (_state == DatabaseState.Updating)
{
Monitor.Wait(_statelock);
}
}
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, NetworkDevice> n in database)
{
using (System.IO.StreamWriter file = new System.IO.StreamWriter(n.Value.Name + ".txt")
{
file.WriteLine(n);
}
}
}
}
public void JobInsert(Action<NetworkDevice> func, NetworkDevice nd)
{
lock (jobs)
{
jobs.Enqueue(item);
if (jobs.Count == 1)
{
// wake up any blocked dequeue
Monitor.Pulse(jobs);
}
}
}
public void JobRemove()
{
Action<NetworkDevice> item;
lock (jobs)
{
while (jobs.Count == 0)
{
lock (_threadswaitinglock)
{
_threadswaiting += 1;
if (_threadswaiting == workers)
Monitor.Pulse(_statelock);
}
Monitor.Wait(jobs);
}
lock (_threadswaitinglock)
{
_threadswaiting -= 1;
}
item = jobs.Dequeue();
item.Invoke();
}
}
public bool NetworkDeviceExists(NetworkDevice nd)
{
try
{
Monitor.Enter(database);
if (database.ContainsKey(nd.Id))
{
return true;
}
else
{
database.Add(nd.Id, nd);
Action<NetworkDevice> action = new Action<NetworkDevice>(UpdateDeviceInfo);
jobs.Enqueue(action);
return false;
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(database);
}
}
//Job1 - Learning -> Update device info
public void UpdateDeviceInfo(NetworkDevice nd)
{
nd.Update(this);
try
{
Monitor.Enter(database);
nd.Status = NetworkDeviceStatus.Self;
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(database);
}
}
//Job2 - Updating -> After Learning, create links between neighbours
private void UpdateLinks()
{
}
}
Your best bet seems like using a BlockingCollection instead of the Queue class. They behave effectively the same in terms of FIFO, but a BlockingCollection will let each of your threads block until an item can be taken by calling GetConsumingEnumerable or Take. Here is a complete example.
http://mikehadlow.blogspot.com/2012/11/using-blockingcollection-to-communicate.html?m=1
As for including the parameters, it seems like you could use closure to enclose the NetworkDevice itself and then just enqueue Action instead of Action<>
I am working on a project that uses Threads. In some cases, I have these problems:
Here is some piece of my code :
List<EmailAddress> lstEmailAddress = new List<EmailAddress>();
private void TimerCheckInternetConnection_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock (TicketLock)
{
if (UtilityManager.CheckForInternetConnection())
{
if (ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.UnknownDisconnect || ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.IsReady)
{
// Connect
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < lstEmailAddress.Count; i++)
{
lstEmailAddress[i].IsActive = lstEmailAddress[i].Login();
}
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
// some code
}));
});
}
}
}
}
and this is EmailAddress class :
class EmailAddress
{
private Imap4Client imap = new Imap4Client();
private object objectLock = new object();
public bool IsActive;
public string Address;
public string Password;
public string RecieveServerAddress;
public int RecieveServerPort;
public bool Login()
{
lock (objectLock)
{
try
{
imap.ConnectSsl(RecieveServerAddress, RecieveServerPort);
}
catch (Exception)
{
}
try
{
imap.Login(Address, Password);
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
return false;
}
}
}
}
And my problem is this:
When I want to use Login procedure that belongs to EmailAddress Class, it has some conflict. As you can see, I used Lock but any thing changed.
For more details:
If I have 3 items in lstEmailAddress , the Login procedure has to be called 3 times by this code. but every time, the login procedure will work on same username and password. So all my emails cannot login correctly.
If I remove threadpool, it will be ok.
Your code is very confusing:
If you add the lock in your code, it will run synchroniously, only one thread at the time, which will lead to performance loss.
If you queue work via QueueUserWorkItem - it will run in other thread, and not inside TicketLock
You should incapsulate locks inside your class, and should not lock entire logic in your program.
You start work for a loop variable i, which is being closured for it's last value, which lead for a problem you state in last sentence.
lock object in Email class isn't static so it's being created for each instance, and doesn't actually lock anithing.
As you are using Invoke method, your code is being started from UI, and you need to pass the synchronization context. I suggest you to use TPL code for this, and do not directly work with ThreadPool
So I suggest you this solution:
List<EmailAddress> lstEmailAddress = new List<EmailAddress>();
private void TimerCheckInternetConnection_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// remove this lock as we have another in Email class
//lock (TicketLock)
if (UtilityManager.CheckForInternetConnection())
{
if (ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.UnknownDisconnect
|| ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.IsReady)
{
for (int i = 0; i < lstEmailAddress.Count; i++)
{
// use local variable to store index
int localIndex = i;
// Connect
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) =>
{
// if you add a lock here, this will run synchroniosly,
// and you aren't really need the ThreadPool
//lock (TicketLock)
lstEmailAddress[localIndex].IsActive = lstEmailAddress[localIndex].Login();
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
// some code
}));
});
}
}
}
}
class EmailAddress
{
// if you have to login only for one user simultaneosly
// use static variables here, other wise simply remove the lock as it is useless
private static Imap4Client imap;
private static object objectLock;
// static constructor for only one initialization for a static fields
static EmailAddress()
{
objectLock = new object();
imap = new Imap4Client();
}
public bool IsActive;
public string Address;
public string Password;
public string RecieveServerAddress;
public int RecieveServerPort;
public bool Login()
{
// aquire a static lock
lock (objectLock)
{
try
{
imap.ConnectSsl(RecieveServerAddress, RecieveServerPort);
}
catch (Exception)
{
// STORE THE EXCEPTION!!!
// return as you haven't connected
return false;
}
try
{
imap.Login(Address, Password);
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
// STORE THE EXCEPTION!!!
return false;
}
}
}
}
Change your Code as and try . you code is queing item from lstEmailAddress where it will always go and hit last item from the list. change your code to inquie each item in threadpool. that should fix. it.
for (int i = 0; i < lstEmailAddress.Count; i++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) =>
{
lstEmailAddress[i].IsActive = lstEmailAddress[i].Login();
}
}
For very special circumstances, I'd like to be able to store C# code in a configuration entry and fill in an empty function with this code at runtime. For example, let's say on initial run I start out with a method such as this:
bool Evaluate(int number)
{
return false;
}
I have a configuration entry that looks like this:
<add key="EvaluateCode" value="if (number > 5) { return true; } else { return false; }"/>
After loading the EvaluateCode configuration entry I'd like to replace the function body of Evaluate so that it looks like this:
bool Evaluate(int number)
{
if (number > 5) { return true; } else { return false; }
}
After this 'replacement' is made, the Evaluate function should behave as the code dictates, just as it would as if the code had not been loaded dynamically.
How could I acheive this in C#?
Bonus: What would be the risks of implementing such a feature? How can I mitigate those risks?
Essentially you are asking for the ability to compile c# code at run time, which is possible, and is described here
This sounded like fun.. so I decided to try it.
No need to upvote.. just popping this here so I can reference it in future :)
Given the below class:
class DynamicMethodTest {
private MethodInfo _methodToCall;
private object _obj;
public void PerformInjection(string newBody) {
using (var codeProvider =
new Microsoft.CSharp.CSharpCodeProvider()) {
var res = codeProvider.CompileAssemblyFromSource(
new System.CodeDom.Compiler.CompilerParameters() {
GenerateInMemory = true
},
"public class StubClass { public bool Evaluate(int number) { " + newBody + " }}"
);
var type = res.CompiledAssembly.GetType("StubClass");
_obj = Activator.CreateInstance(type);
_methodToCall = _obj.GetType().GetMethod("Evaluate");
}
}
public bool Evaluate(int number) {
if (_methodToCall != null)
return (bool)_methodToCall.Invoke(_obj, new object[] { number });
return false;
}
}
We can do this:
public class Program {
public static void Main() {
var dynamicTest = new DynamicMethodTest();
Console.WriteLine(dynamicTest.Evaluate(15)); // False
dynamicTest.PerformInjection("if (number > 5) { return true; } else { return false; }");
Console.WriteLine(dynamicTest.Evaluate(15)); // True
Console.Read();
}
}
This results in:
False
True
As output. Basically, before the "Injection" (its not really injection.. its more of a fascade) the method returns false. After "Injection" it returns true (as expected).