We Keep Coding

C# LanguageExt - combine multiple async calls into one grouped call

I have a method that looks up an item asynchronously from a datastore;
class MyThing {}
Task<Try<MyThing>> GetThing(int thingId) {...}
I want to look up multiple items from the datastore, and wrote a new method to do this. I also wrote a helper method that will take multiple Try<T> and combine their results into a single Try<IEnumerable<T>>.
public static class TryExtensions
{
Try<IEnumerable<T>> Collapse<T>(this IEnumerable<Try<T>> items)
{
var failures = items.Fails().ToArray();
return failures.Any() ?
Try<IEnumerable<T>>(new AggregateException(failures)) :
Try(items.Select(i => i.Succ(a => a).Fail(Enumerable.Empty<T>())));
}
}
async Task<Try<MyThing[]>> GetThings(IEnumerable<string> ids)
{
var results = new List<Try<Things>>();
foreach (var id in ids)
{
var thing = await GetThing(id);
results.Add(thing);
}
return results.Collapse().Map(p => p.ToArray());
}
Another way to do it would be like this;
async Task<Try<MyThing[]>> GetThings(IEnumerable<string> ids)
{
var tasks = ids.Select(async id => await GetThing(id)).ToArray();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
return tasks.Select(t => t.Result).Collapse().Map(p => p.ToArray());
}
The problem with this is that all the tasks will run in parallel and I don't want to hammer my datastore with lots of parallel requests. What I really want is to make my code functional, using monadic principles and features of LanguageExt. Does anyone know how to achieve this?
Update
Thanks for the suggestion #MatthewWatson, this is what it looks like with the SemaphoreSlim;
async Task<Try<MyThing[]>> GetThings(IEnumerable<string> ids)
{
var mutex = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
var results = ids.Select(async id =>
{
await mutex.WaitAsync();
try { return await GetThing(id); }
finally { mutex.Release(); }
}).ToArray();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
return tasks.Select(t => t.Result).Collapse().Map(Enumerable.ToArray);
return results.Collapse().Map(p => p.ToArray());
}
Problem is, this is still not very monadic / functional, and ends up with more lines of code than my original code with a foreach block.

In the "Another way" you almost achieved your goal when you called:
var tasks = ids.Select(async id => await GetThing(id)).ToArray();
Except that Tasks doesn't run sequentially so you will end up with many queries hitting your datastore, which is caused by .ToArray() and Task.WhenAll. Once you called .ToArray() it allocated and started the Tasks already, so if you can "tolerate" one foreach to achieve the sequential tasks running, like this:
public static class TaskExtensions
{
public static async Task RunSequentially<T>(this IEnumerable<Task<T>> tasks)
{
foreach (var task in tasks) await task;
}
}
Despite that running a "loop" of queries is not a quite good practice
in general, unless you have in some background service and some
special scenario, leveraging this to the Database engine through
WHERE thingId IN (...) in general is a better option. Even you
have big amount of thingIds we can slice it into small 10s, 100s.. to
narrow the WHERE IN footprint.
Back to our RunSequentially, I would like to make it more functional like this for example:
tasks.ToList().ForEach(async task => await task);
But sadly this will still run kinda "Parallel" tasks.
So the final usage should be:
async Task<Try<MyThing[]>> GetThings(IEnumerable<string> ids)
{
var tasks = ids.Select(id => GetThing(id));// remember don't use .ToArray or ToList...
await tasks.RunSequentially();
return tasks.Select(t => t.Result).Collapse().Map(p => p.ToArray());
}
Another overkill functional solution is to get Lazy in a Queue recursively !!
Instead GetThing, get a Lazy one GetLazyThing that returns Lazy<Task<Try<MyThing>>> simply by wrapping GetThing:
new Lazy<Task<Try<MyThing>>>(() => GetThing(id))
Now using couple extensions/functions:
public static async Task RecRunSequentially<T>(this IEnumerable<Lazy<Task<T>>> tasks)
{
var queue = tasks.EnqueueAll();
await RunQueue(queue);
}
public static Queue<T> EnqueueAll<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list)
{
var queue = new Queue<T>();
list.ToList().ForEach(m => queue.Enqueue(m));
return queue;
}
public static async Task RunQueue<T>(Queue<Lazy<Task<T>>> queue)
{
if (queue.Count > 0)
{
var task = queue.Dequeue();
await task.Value; // this unwraps the Lazy object content
await RunQueue(queue);
}
}
Finally:
var lazyTasks = ids.Select(id => GetLazyThing(id));
await lazyTasks.RecRunSequentially();
// Now collapse and map as you like
Update
However if you don't like the fact that EnqueueAll and RunQueue are not "pure", we can take the following approach with the same Lazy trick
public static async Task AwaitSequentially<T>(this Lazy<Task<T>>[] array, int index = 0)
{
if (array == null || index < 0 || index >= array.Length - 1) return;
await array[index].Value;
await AwaitSequentially(array, index + 1); // ++index is not pure :)
}
Now:
var lazyTasks = ids.Select(id => GetLazyThing(id));
await tasks.ToArray().AwaitSequentially();
// Now collapse and map as you like

Async/Await - Await not holding as expected

When performing a long running operation I noticed that i could kickstart a long running sub-operation right off the start line and do other stuff while it fetches results from caches/databases.
The given operation is:
public async Task<Fichaclis> Finalize()
{
using (TransactionScope transaction = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeAsyncFlowOption.Enabled))
{
transactionTimer.Start();
var agendasTransitionTask = ExecuteAgendas();
... DO ALOT OF SYNC OPERATIONS ...
await agendasTransitionTask;
transaction.Complete();
}
}
private Task ExecuteAgendas()
{
return ags.GetAgendas().ContinueWith((prev) =>
{
var currentAgendas = prev.Result;
foreach (var item in currentAgendas)
{
... DO QUICK SYNC STUFF...
}
return ags.BulkEditAgenda(currentAgendas);
});
}
GetAgendas is a method used all over with the following signature:
public async Task<List<Agendas>> GetAgendas()
because it's widely used, i believe the problem is not there. As for BulkEditAgenda:
public async Task BulkEditAgenda(IEnumerable<Agendas> agendas)
{
if (agendas == null || agendas.Count() == 0)
{
return;
}
var t1 = AddOrUpdateCache(agendas);
var t2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
foreach (var item in agendas)
{
EditNoReconnection(item);
}
Save();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//log
throw;
}
});
await Task.WhenAll(t1, t2);
}
EditNoReconnect and Save are both sync methods.
private Task AddOrUpdateCache(IEnumerable<Agendas> agendas)
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
foreach (var item in agendas)
{
tasks.Add(TryGetCache(item)
.ContinueWith((taskResult) =>
{
...DO QUICK SYNC STUFF...
})
);
}
return Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
TryGetCache is also a widely used method, so I think it's safe... it's signature is private Task<AgendasCacheLookupResult> TryGetCache(
So, resuming the issue at hand: For a small set of items do in the sync session of the Finalize method the command transaction.Complete() is execute before Save() (inside BulkEditAgendas). For a regular or large amount of items, it works as expected.
This means that i'm not chaining the Tasks correctly, or my understanding of how Async/Await + Tasks/ContinueWith works is fundamentally incorrect. Where am I wrong?

The problem is most likely here:
private Task ExecuteAgendas()
{
return ags.GetAgendas().ContinueWith((prev) =>
{
var currentAgendas = prev.Result;
foreach (var item in currentAgendas)
{
... DO QUICK SYNC STUFF...
}
return ags.BulkEditAgenda(currentAgendas);
});
}
First, what you return from this is the continuation task (result of ContinueWith). But body of ContinueWith ends when you do
return ags.BulkEditAgenda(currentAgendas);
So body of continuation ends potentially before BulkEditAgenda task is completed (you don't wait in any way for completion of BulkEditAgenda). So this line
await agendasTransitionTask;
Returns while BulkEditAgenda is still in progress. To clarify even more, note that what is returned from ExecuteAgendas is Task<Task> and result of await agendasTransitionTask is Task which represents your running BulkEditAgenda.
To fix, just use async\await like you do everywhere else:
private async Task ExecuteAgendas() {
var currentAgengas = await ags.GetAgendas();
foreach (var item in currentAgendas) {
// do stuff
}
await ags.BulkEditAgenda(currentAgendas);
}

Retrieving what did work when Task.WhenAll throws exception

Consider
string[] pages;
Task [] asyncOps =
(from url in urls select DownloadStringAsync(url)).ToArray();
try
{
pages = await Task.WhenAll(asyncOps);
...
}
catch(Exception exc)
{
foreach(Task<string> faulted in asyncOps.Where(t => t.IsFaulted))
{
… // work with faulted and faulted.Exception
}
}
from https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh873173%28v=vs.110%29.aspx. How can I retrieve the pages that DID work?
Or better, how can I keep going and compute the rest of the pages?

Instead of doing all the downloads and then handling each success/error separately, I think it's much cleaner if you define a separate "download and handle error" operation:
Task [] asyncOps =
(from url in urls select DownloadStringWithErrorCheckingAsync(url)).ToArray();
string[] pages = await Task.WhenAll(asyncOps);
var successfulPages = pages.Where(x => x != null);
...
private static Task<string> DownloadStringWithErrorCheckingAsync(string url)
{
try
{
return await DownloadStringAsync(url);
}
catch(Exception exc)
{
... // work with exc
return null;
}
}

I've same problem. I need to start several task, wait for each to terminate and then, process all task Status/Exception/Result.
I can't use Stephen's solution because final processings are not independent from each other. It's some kind of: if task1 is Ok, I will try to take result of task2 and if not, I will take task3 result. I need each response to infer my behavior.
Task[] toWait = new Task[]{...};
await Task.WhenAll(toWait).ContinueWith((t) => {t?.Exception?.Handle((exc)=>true);}, ct);
I don't await result of WhenAll but result of ContinueWith whose action only silently handle exception.
It's not very elegant but we can hide it with a method like this one:
public static Task WhenAllNoThrow(this Task[] toWait, CancellationToken token)
{
return TaskEx.WhenAll(toWait).ContinueWith((t) => { t?.Exception?.Handle((exc) => true); }, token);
}
EDIT: Added null-conditional Operators ?.

Its not clear what "DownloadStringAsync" is, I assumed it was WebClient.DownloadStringAsync
This function does not return a task, you need to subscribe to a the complete event to capture the result.
It doesnt appear that is what you wanted to do so I changed your code to do a parallel for loop instead.
Dictionary<string, string> pages = new Dictionary<string, string>();
Dictionary<string, string> errors = new Dictionary<string, string>();
string[] urls = new string[] { "http://www.google.com", "http://www.bbc.co.uk" };
Parallel.ForEach<string>(urls, (url) =>
{
var webClient = new System.Net.WebClient();
try
{
pages[url] = webClient.DownloadString(new Uri(url));
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
errors[url] = ex.Message;
}
});
// The successful
foreach(var kvp in pages)
{
Console.WriteLine(kvp.Key);
//Console.WriteLine(kvp.Value);
}
// The failures
foreach (var kvp in errors)
{
Console.WriteLine(kvp.Key);
//Console.WriteLine(kvp.Value);
}

Gracefully handeling exceptions when dealing with WhenAll

I'm playing with a piece of code I wrote a while back. That piece of code deals with making a few requests in an async manner.
var client = new HttpClient();
var searchPromises = searchTerms
.Select(GetSearchUrl)
.Select(client.GetStringAsync);
var searchPages = await Task.WhenAll(searchPromises);
What happens is I create a new HttpClient. Using some search terch terms I compose search engine urls. Then I use those urls as inputs to get tasks representing the async requests for a page with the results. And last, I await those responses using Task.WhenAll to group them together.
The problem is if just one of those requests gets a 404, a 500 or anything like that my code throws an AggregateException.
Is there a way of specifying what should happen in the case of an error in one of those threads, so that I get a result from everything else?
I've looked at ContinueWith, but it doesn't seem to fit the bill, that is, it doesn't know how to deal with all the errors, just the aggregate one.

What happens is I create a new HttpClient. Using some search terch terms I compose search engine urls. Then I use those urls as inputs to get tasks representing the async requests for a page with the results. And last, I await those responses using Task.WhenAll to group them together.
Is there a way of specifying what should happen in the case of an error in one of those threads, so that I get a result from everything else?
IMO, the easiest solution is to change how you think about the problem. Right now, you're thinking "perform a download on each url" and then "what for them all to complete and handle errors on a per-item basis". Just change your operation ("download") to include anything you want to do per-item. In other words, what you want to do is "perform a download on each url and handle errors" and then "wait for them all to complete":
var client = new HttpClient();
var searchPromises = searchTerms
.Select(GetSearchUrl)
.Select(url => DownloadAsync(client, url));
var searchPages = await Task.WhenAll(searchPromises);
var successfulSearchPages = searchPages.Where(x => x != null);
...
private static async Task<string> DownloadAsync(HttpClient client, string url)
{
try
{
return await client.GetStringAsync(url);
}
catch (HttpRequestException ex)
{
// TODO: Perform appropriate error handling
return null;
}
}

Task.WhenAll will return a task that is completed when all the tasks passed as argument are completed.
If any of the tasks passed as argument ends in a Faulted state (an exception was thrown), the returned task will also end in a Faulted state and its Exception property will contain the aggregation of all exceptions thrown by the tasks passed as argument.
Because the code generated by the compiler picks the first exceptin on the list, only the excpetion thrown by the first exception that throws (not the first exception thrwing) will be rethrown.
But the tasks passed as argument still exist and can still be queried for result.
This code snippet shows this working:
var tasks = new Task[] {
((Func<Task>)(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(10);
await Task.Delay(10);
await Task.Delay(10);
throw new Exception("First");
}))(),
((Func<Task>)(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(10);
throw new Exception("Second");
}))(),
((Func<Task>)(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(10);
}))()
};
var allTasks = Task.WhenAll(tasks);
try
{
await allTasks;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Overall failed: {0}", ex.Message);
}
for(var i = 0; i < tasks.Length; i++)
{
try
{
await tasks[i];
Console.WriteLine("Taks {0} succeeded!", i);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Taks {0} failed!", i);
}
}
/*
Overall failed: First
Taks 0 failed!
Taks 1 failed!
Taks 2 succeeded!
*/

You can create your own version of Task.WhenAll that returns just the results disregarding any exception using Task.WhenAny:
public static async Task<IEnumerable<TResult>> WhenAllSwallowExceptions<TResult>(IEnumerable<Task<TResult>> tasks)
{
var tasklist = tasks.ToList();
var results = new List<TResult>();
while (tasklist.Any())
{
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(tasklist);
try
{
results.Add(await completedTask);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// handle
}
tasklist.Remove(completedTask);
}
return results;
}
Usage:
var searchPages = await WhenAllSwallowExceptions(searchPromises);
This waits for tasks one at a time (with Task.WhenAny) and aggregates all the results (if there are any).

I've found a way to do this, after many iterations. Tasks are starting to look like things that you need a library to abstract.
Anyway, here's the code:
var client = new HttpClient();
var exceptions = new ConcurrentBag<Exception>();
var searchPromises = searchTerms
.Select(GetSearchUrl)
.Select(client.GetStringAsync)
.Select(t=>t.Catch(e=>exceptions.Add(e)));
var searchPages = (await Task.WhenAll(searchPromises))
.Where(r => r != null);
And the implementation for Catch:
public static Task<TResult> Catch<TResult>(this Task<TResult> self, Action<Exception> exceptionHandlerTask)
{
return self.ContinueWith(s =>
{
if (!s.IsFaulted)
{
return s.Result;
}
exceptionHandlerTask(s.Exception);
return default(TResult);
},
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously |
TaskContinuationOptions.DenyChildAttach,
TaskScheduler.Default);
}
What happens now is that it gives you a way to append a failure state function to the Task<T> promise. This allows me to still have chainability. It is a shame that c# doesn't have robust support for functional pattern matching to make this easier.
Edit: added minimal code for error logging.
Edit: separated the code for logging errors to be more generic/reusable.
Edit: separated the code for saving the errors from the Catch function.

Good pattern for exception handling when using async calls

I want to consume an Web API and I see many people recommending System.Net.Http.HttpClient.
That's fine... but I have only VS-2010, so I cannot use async/await just yet. Instead, I guess I could use Task<TResult> in combination to ContinueWith. So I tried this piece of code:
var client = new HttpClient();
client.DefaultRequestHeaders.Accept.Add(
new MediaTypeWithQualityHeaderValue("application/json"));
client.GetStringAsync(STR_URL_SERVER_API_USERS).ContinueWith(task =>
{
var usersResultString = task.Result;
lbUsers.DataSource = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<string>>(usersResultString);
});
My first observation was to realize that it doesn't generate any error if URL is not available, but maybe there will be more errors like this...
So I am trying to find a way to handle exceptions for such async calls (particularly for HttpClient). I noticed that "Task" has IsFaulted property and an AggregateException which maybe could be used, but I am not sure yet how.
Another observation was that GetStringAsync returns Task<string>, but GetAsync returns Task<HttpResponseMessage>. The latter could be maybe more useful, since it presents a StatusCode.
Could you share a pattern on how to use the async calls correctly and handle exceptions in a good way? Basic explanation would be appreciated as well.

I would not use a separate ContinueWith continuation for successful and faulted scenarios. I'd rather handle both cases in a single place, using try/catch:
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
try
{
// this would re-throw an exception from task, if any
var result = t.Result;
// process result
lbUsers.DataSource = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<string>>(result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
lbUsers.Clear();
lbUsers.Items.Add("Error loading users!");
}
},
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.None,
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext()
);
If t is a non-generic Task (rather than a Task<TResult>), you can do t.GetAwaiter().GetResult() to re-throw the original exception inside the ContinueWith lambda; t.Wait() would work too. Be prepared to handle AggregatedException, you can get to the inner exception with something like this:
catch (Exception ex)
{
while (ex is AggregatedException && ex.InnerException != null)
ex = ex.InnerException;
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
If you're dealing with a series of ContinueWith, usually you don't have to handle exceptions inside each ContinueWith. Do it once for the outermost resulting task, e.g.:
void GetThreePagesV1()
{
var httpClient = new HttpClient();
var finalTask = httpClient.GetStringAsync("http://example.com")
.ContinueWith((task1) =>
{
var page1 = task1.Result;
return httpClient.GetStringAsync("http://example.net")
.ContinueWith((task2) =>
{
var page2 = task2.Result;
return httpClient.GetStringAsync("http://example.org")
.ContinueWith((task3) =>
{
var page3 = task3.Result;
return page1 + page2 + page3;
}, TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously);
}, TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously).Unwrap();
}, TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously).Unwrap()
.ContinueWith((resultTask) =>
{
httpClient.Dispose();
string result = resultTask.Result;
try
{
MessageBox.Show(result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
},
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.None,
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
}
Any exceptions thrown inside inner tasks will propagate to the outermost ContinueWith lambda as you're accessing the results of the inner tasks (taskN.Result).
This code is functional, but it's also ugly and non-readable. JavaScript developers call it The Callback Pyramid of Doom. They have Promises to deal with it. C# developers have async/await, which you're unfortunately not able to use because of the VS2010 restrain.
IMO, the closest thing to the JavaScript Promises in TPL is Stephen Toub's Then pattern. And the closest thing to async/await in C# 4.0 is his Iterate pattern from the same blog post, which uses the C# yield feature.
Using the Iterate pattern, the above code could be rewritten in a more readable way. Note that inside GetThreePagesHelper you can use all the familiar synchronous code statements like using, for, while, try/catch etc. It is however important to understand the asynchronous code flow of this pattern:
void GetThreePagesV2()
{
Iterate(GetThreePagesHelper()).ContinueWith((iteratorTask) =>
{
try
{
var lastTask = (Task<string>)iteratorTask.Result;
var result = lastTask.Result;
MessageBox.Show(result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
throw;
}
},
CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.None,
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
}
IEnumerable<Task> GetThreePagesHelper()
{
// now you can use "foreach", "using" etc
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient())
{
var task1 = httpClient.GetStringAsync("http://example.com");
yield return task1;
var page1 = task1.Result;
var task2 = httpClient.GetStringAsync("http://example.net");
yield return task2;
var page2 = task2.Result;
var task3 = httpClient.GetStringAsync("http://example.org");
yield return task3;
var page3 = task3.Result;
yield return Task.Delay(1000);
var resultTcs = new TaskCompletionSource<string>();
resultTcs.SetResult(page1 + page1 + page3);
yield return resultTcs.Task;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// A slightly modified version of Iterate from
/// http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2010/11/21/10094564.aspx
/// </summary>
public static Task<Task> Iterate(IEnumerable<Task> asyncIterator)
{
if (asyncIterator == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("asyncIterator");
var enumerator = asyncIterator.GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator == null)
throw new InvalidOperationException("asyncIterator.GetEnumerator");
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<Task>();
Action<Task> nextStep = null;
nextStep = (previousTask) =>
{
if (previousTask != null && previousTask.Exception != null)
tcs.SetException(previousTask.Exception);
if (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
enumerator.Current.ContinueWith(nextStep,
TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously);
}
else
{
tcs.SetResult(previousTask);
}
};
nextStep(null);
return tcs.Task;
}