We Keep Coding

Task.Wait for async method passes during application startup while it causes deadlock in WPF button handler

The behavior of Task.Wait() is unexpectedly different depending on the "environment" where invoked.
Calling Task.Wait() during application startup with below async method TestAsync passes (doesn't cause a deadlock) while the same code blocks when called from within a WPF Button handler.
Steps to reproduce:
In Visual Studio, using the wizard, create a vanilla WPF .NET framework application (e.g. named WpfApp).
In the App.xaml.cs file of the app file paste below Main method and TestAsync method.
In the project properties set Startup object to WpfApp.App.
In the properties of App.xaml switch Build Action from ApplicationDefinition to Page.
public partial class App : Application
{
[STAThread]
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
Task<DateTime> task = App.TestAsync();
task.Wait();
App app = new App();
app.InitializeComponent();
return app.Run();
}
internal static async Task<DateTime> TestAsync()
{
DateTime completed = await Task.Run<DateTime>(() => {
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(3000);
return DateTime.Now;
});
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(completed);
return completed;
}
}
Observe that the application starts properly (after 3sec delay) and that the "completed" DateTime is written to debug output.
Next create a Button in MainWindow.xaml with Click handler Button_Click in MainWindow.xaml.cs
public partial class MainWindow : Window
{
...
private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Task<DateTime> task = App.TestAsync();
task.Wait();
}
}
Observe that after clicking the Button, the application is deadlocked.
Why can't it pass in both cases?
Is there a way to change invocation (e.g. using ConfigureAwait at the correct task or somehow setting SynchronizationContext or whatever) so that it behaves identical in both invocations, but still synchronously waits for completion?
Update on limitations of the solution.
The async method like TestAsync comes from a library that cannot be changed.
The invocation code of the TestAsync method is nested within a callstack that cannot be changed either, and the code outside the callstck makes use of the returned value of the async method.
Ultimately the solution code has to convert the async method to run synchronous by not changing the method nor the caller.
This works well within UT code (NUnit) and during application startup, but no more within a handler of WPF.
Why?

There are a couple of different ways that you can handle this situation, but ultimately the reason there is a deadlock in one situation and not the other is that when called in the Main method SynchronizationContext.Current is null, so there isn't a main UI context to capture and all async callbacks are handled on thread pool threads. When called from the button, there is a synchronization context which is captured automatically, so all async callbacks in that situation are handled on the main UI thread which is causing the deadlock. In general the only way you won't get that deadlock is by forcing the async code to not capture the synchronization context, or use async all the way up and don't synchronously wait from the main UI context.
you can ConfigureAwait(false) inside of your TestAsync method so that it doesn't capture the synchronization context and try to continue on the main UI thread (this is ultimately what is causing your deadlock because you are calling task.Wait() on the UI thread which is blocking the UI thread, and you have System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(completed); that is trying to be scheduled back onto the UI thread because await automatically captures the synchronization context)
DateTime completed = await Task.Run<DateTime>(() => {
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(3000);
return DateTime.Now;
}).ConfigureAwait(false);
You can start the async task on a background thread so that there isn't a synchronization context to capture.
private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
var task = Task.Run(() => App.TestAsync());
var dateTime = task.Result;
}
you can use async up the whole stack
private async void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
Task<DateTime> task = App.TestAsync();
var dateTime = await task;
}
Given how you are using it, if you don't have to wait until the task is done, you can just let it go and it will finish eventually, but you lose the context to handle any exceptions
private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
//assigning to a variable indicates to the compiler that you
//know the application will continue on without checking if
//the task is finished. If you aren't using the variable, you
//can use the throw away special character _
_ = App.TestAsync();
}
These options are not in any particular order, and actually, best practice would probably be #3. async void is allowed specifically for cases like this where you want to handle a callback event asynchronously.

From what I understand, in .NET many of the front ends have a single UI thread, and therefore must be written async all the way through. Other threads are reserved and utilized for things like rendering.
For WPF, this is why use of the Dispatcher and how you queue up work items is important, as this is your way to interact with the one thread you have at your disposal. More reading on it here
Ditch the .Result as this will block, rewrite the method as async, and call it from within the Dispatch.Invoke() and it should run as intended

Why can't it pass in both cases?
The difference is the presence of a SynchronizationContext. All threads start out without a SynchronizationContext. UI applications have a special UI thread(s) and at some point they need to create a SynchronizationContext and install it on that thread(s). Exactly when this happens isn't documented (or consistent), but it has to be installed at the point the UI main loop starts.
In this case, WPF will install it (at the latest) within the call to Application.Run. All user invocations from the UI framework (e.g., event handlers) happen within this context.
The blocking code deadlocks with the context because this is the classic deadlock situation, which requires three components:
A context that only allows one thread at a time.
An asynchronous method that captures that context.
A method also running in that context that blocks waiting for that asynchronous method.
Before the WPF code installed the context, condition (1) wasn't met, and that's why it didn't deadlock.
Is there a way to change invocation (e.g. using ConfigureAwait at the correct task or somehow setting SynchronizationContext or whatever) so that it behaves identical in both invocations, but still synchronously waits for completion?
We-ell...
This is a rephrasing of "how do I block on asynchronous code", and there's no good answer for that. The best answer is to not block on asynchronous code at all; i.e., use async all the way. Especially since this is GUI code, I'd say for the sake of UX you really want to avoid blocking. Since you're on WPF, you may find a technique like asynchronous MVVM data binding useful.
That said, there are a few hacks you can use if you must. Using ConfigureAwait is one possible solution, but not one I recommend; you'd have to apply it to all awaits within the transitive closure of all methods being blocked on (Blocking Hack). Or you can shunt the work to the thread pool (Task.Run) and block on that (Thread Pool Hack). Or you can remove the SynchronizationContext - unless the code being blocked on manipulates UI elements or bound data. Or there are even more dangerous hacks that I really can't recommend at all (Nested Message Loop Hack).
But even after putting in all the work for a hack, you'll still end up blocking the UI. The hacks are hard precisely because they're not recommended. It's quite a bit of work to give your users a worse experience. The far, far better solution (for your users and future code maintainers) is to go async all the way.

Is async method synchronous if await Task is never returned?

I have a constructor that is called on UI thread in my WPF app. Inside of it, it calls async method but it must be done in a synchronous way. So I tried to call wait, but it caused deadlock an I understand why. So I introduced argument that indicates if method should be run in a asynchronous or synchronous manner. Something like this:
// constructor that is called on UI thread
public MyClass()
{
Method1(false).Wait();
}
public async Task Method1(bool runAsync)
{
await Method2(runAsync);
}
public async Task Method2(bool runAsync)
{
if (runAsync)
{
await Task.Run(() => Thread.Sleep(1000));
}
else
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
I don't want to use ConfigureAwait because I want everything to run on UI thread. Will Method1(false).Wait(); ever cause a deadlock (is it safe to use)? I tested it a lot and it didn't, but I'm not sure. Finally, my real question is: if 'await Task.Run(...' is never executed, is my method completely synchronous? I found several posts on this subject, but none of them answers directly to my question.

I have a constructor that is called on UI thread in my WPF app. Inside of it, it calls async method but it must be done in a synchronous way.
I'm gonna stop you right there. The best solution is not to run synchronous/blocking code on the UI thread. That degrades your user experience. Instead, you should restructure your code so that you're never in this situation in the first place.
When a UI is being shown, the UI framework asks your code for the data to display. Your code should run synchronously and return immediately (not blocking). But your code also needs to do some asynchronous work in order to have the data to display. So there's a conflict there.
The solution is to design an intermediate state for your UI, e.g., a "loading..." message or a spinner. Then, when your code starts, it can synchronously/immediately display the "loading" state (and start the asynchronous operation), and when the asynchronous data arrives, the code updates the UI to the "final" state.
I discuss this pattern in more detail in my article on async MVVM data.

Instead of wrestling with async stuff at construction (your blocking solution isn't so good), why not write an async factory to spew out these objects?
class MyClass
{
public MyClass()
{
}
public async Task Method2(bool runAsync)
{
//async immediately
await Task.Delay(1000); //no Thread.Sleep. Blocking code != good
}
}
then
public MyClassFactory
{
public async Task<MyClass> GetAsync()
{
var c = new MyClass();
await c.Method2();
return c;
}
}

Open a custom busy indicator while a main window is busy or doing some task

My application is based on WPF.
Task is I need to show a custom busy indicator while something is working in the main window ( because the app UI will be freezed untill it complete the task). So what I particularly want is as below
// Code in main window
CustomBusyIndicator.ShowDialog();
//....
//..code that takes time
//....
CustomBusyIndicator.Close();
So I must implement a window which must be flexible to call anywhere in my main application to indicate busy.
Here two points should be kept in mind,
1. When i show CustomBusyIndicator, in background the main window should be running it's task
2. When i show CustomBusyIndicator, the CustomBusyIndicator should be always on top of main window, user must not be able to use the main window, if he switch to other application using Start+tab or something and again when he switch back to my application,the CustomBusyIndicator should be on top(if it is not closed).
When the task is completed I should be able call just close() method to close the CustomBusyIndicator from the main window as shown in code.

Easy to solve
public async void Button1_Click(Object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
// get a task for the dialog, but do not await here its completion
var dialogTask = CustomBusyIndicator.ShowDialogAsync();
// await the completion of the lengthy operation
await SomeLengthOperationAsync();
// close the dialog
CustomBusyIndicator.Close();
// now await the completion of the dialog task
await dialogTask;
}
and the extension is
public static class WindowExtensions
{
public static async Task<bool?> ShowDialogAsync( this Window window )
{
await Task.Yield();
return window.ShowDialog();
}
}

If you don't know how to work with async await, just move your long running logic in a backgroundworker. There are several options for making the backgroundworker communicate without problems with the main GUI thread.
Based on your question and your level of experience I think you are way over your head with async wait. But Rufo's solution is fine too.
Google is your friend, There is a lot of information about using the backgroundworker and about async await too. It will just take a bit longer to fully grasp the potential of async await. Async await is btw not a solution for everything. I ran into a situation today where I ran in a database with EF6 that simply says it does not support async operations. Works perfectly well with sql server but this was pervasive. Total dissapointment because now me too have to use a backgroundworker where my first idea was async await.
The idea behind async await, is that the gui thread is not blocked if you are doing a long running task. It is more like a waitpoint where it will continue if that long operation is finished.
Other options are to use RX, but that difficulty level increases again.
Use the backgroundworker and you are fine, and your gui is never blocked. You can even cancel the work of the backgroundworker. Excellent solution for you.

Background Tasks in WinRT

Ths situtation:
I get from different internet locations, json objects.
These containsmany Geocoordinates that I put onto a BingMap.
That works perfect very well.
The Problem:
but when I fetch the data from the internet locations I get a blocking ui.
Is there a method to run that in background?
I tried the async functionality but I get there a blocking UI too..
Here some code
Caller
public async void Caller_Click(){
await jsonDataClass.DoOperations();
}
The method in the jsonDataClass
public async Task<bool> DoOperations(){
// do requests and some stuff..
var fetchedElements = getdata(); // not async, because its in a portable lib
foreach (var element in fetchedElements)
OnEvent(element); // raises an event to assing the element to the Bing map
}

Don't ignore compiler warnings. In particular, if you have an async method that doesn't use await, then the compiler will specifically tell you that the method is not asynchronous and will run synchronously.
The first thing I would recommend is to change getdata so that it is async. The Microsoft.Bcl.Async NuGet package extends async support to portable class libraries.
If that's not possible, then you'll have to execute getdata on a background thread, like this:
public async Task<bool> DoOperations()
{
var fetchedElements = await Task.Run(() => getdata());
foreach (var element in fetchedElements)
OnEvent(element);
}
P.S. The term "background task" has a special meaning in WinRT. What you actually need is to run code on a thread pool thread (or background thread), which is different than what WinRT calls a "background task".

What's a good non-networked example of the new C# Async feature?

Microsoft just announced the new C# Async feature. Every example I've seen so far is about asynchronously downloading something from HTTP. Surely there are other important async things?
Suppose I'm not writing a new RSS client or Twitter app. What's interesting about C# Async for me?
Edit I had an Aha! moment while watching Anders' PDC session. In the past I have worked on programs that used "watcher" threads. These threads sit waiting for something to happen, like watching for a file to change. They aren't doing work, they're just idle, and notify the main thread when something happens. These threads could be replaced with await/async code in the new model.

Ooh, this sounds interesting. I'm not playing with the CTP just yet, just reviewing the whitepaper. After seeing Anders Hejlsberg's talk about it, I think I can see how it could prove useful.
As I understand, async makes writing asynchronous calls easier to read and implement. Very much in the same way writing iterators is easier right now (as opposed to writing out the functionality by hand). This is essential blocking processes since no useful work can be done, until it is unblocked. If you were downloading a file, you cannot do anything useful until you get that file letting the thread go to waste. Consider how one would call a function which you know will block for an undetermined length and returns some result, then process it (e.g., store the results in a file). How would you write that? Here's a simple example:
static object DoSomeBlockingOperation(object args)
{
// block for 5 minutes
Thread.Sleep(5 * 60 * 1000);
return args;
}
static void ProcessTheResult(object result)
{
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
static void CalculateAndProcess(object args)
{
// let's calculate! (synchronously)
object result = DoSomeBlockingOperation(args);
// let's process!
ProcessTheResult(result);
}
Ok good, we have it implemented. But wait, the calculation takes minutes to complete. What if we wanted to have an interactive application and do other things while the calculation took place (such as rendering the UI)? This is no good, since we called the function synchronously and we have to wait for it to finish effectively freezing the application since the thread is waiting to be unblocked.
Answer, call the function expensive function asynchronously. That way we're not bound to waiting for the blocking operation to complete. But how do we do that? We'd call the function asynchronously and register a callback function to be called when unblocked so we may process the result.
static void CalculateAndProcessAsyncOld(object args)
{
// obtain a delegate to call asynchronously
Func<object, object> calculate = DoSomeBlockingOperation;
// define the callback when the call completes so we can process afterwards
AsyncCallback cb = ar =>
{
Func<object, object> calc = (Func<object, object>)ar.AsyncState;
object result = calc.EndInvoke(ar);
// let's process!
ProcessTheResult(result);
};
// let's calculate! (asynchronously)
calculate.BeginInvoke(args, cb, calculate);
}
Note: Sure we could start another thread to do this but that would mean we're spawning a thread that just sits there waiting to be unblocked, then do some useful work. That would be a waste.
Now the call is asynchronous and we don't have to worry about waiting for the calculation to finish and process, it's done asynchronously. It will finish when it can. An alternative to calling code asynchronously directly, you could use a Task:
static void CalculateAndProcessAsyncTask(object args)
{
// create a task
Task<object> task = new Task<object>(DoSomeBlockingOperation, args);
// define the callback when the call completes so we can process afterwards
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
// let's process!
ProcessTheResult(t.Result);
});
// let's calculate! (asynchronously)
task.Start();
}
Now we called our function asynchronously. But what did it take to get it that way? First of all, we needed the delegate/task to be able to call it asynchronously, we needed a callback function to be able to process the results, then call the function. We've turned a two line function call to much more just to call something asynchronously. Not only that, the logic in the code has gotten more complex then it was or could be. Although using a task helped simplify the process, we still needed to do stuff to make it happen. We just want to run asynchronously then process the result. Why can't we just do that? Well now we can:
// need to have an asynchronous version
static async Task<object> DoSomeBlockingOperationAsync(object args)
{
//it is my understanding that async will take this method and convert it to a task automatically
return DoSomeBlockingOperation(args);
}
static async void CalculateAndProcessAsyncNew(object args)
{
// let's calculate! (asynchronously)
object result = await DoSomeBlockingOperationAsync(args);
// let's process!
ProcessTheResult(result);
}
Now this was a very simplified example with simple operations (calculate, process). Imagine if each operation couldn't conveniently be put into a separate function but instead have hundreds of lines of code. That's a lot of added complexity just to gain the benefit of asynchronous calling.
Another practical example used in the whitepaper is using it on UI apps. Modified to use the above example:
private async void doCalculation_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) {
    doCalculation.IsEnabled = false;
    await DoSomeBlockingOperationAsync(GetArgs());
    doCalculation.IsEnabled = true;
}
If you've done any UI programming (be it WinForms or WPF) and attempted to call an expensive function within a handler, you'll know this is handy. Using a background worker for this wouldn't be that much helpful since the background thread will be sitting there waiting until it can work.
Suppose you had a way to control some external device, let's say a printer. And you wanted to restart the device after a failure. Naturally it will take some time for the printer to start up and be ready for operation. You might have to account for the restart not helping and attempt to restart again. You have no choice but to wait for it. Not if you did it asynchronously.
static async void RestartPrinter()
{
Printer printer = GetPrinter();
do
{
printer.Restart();
printer = await printer.WaitUntilReadyAsync();
} while (printer.HasFailed);
}
Imagine writing the loop without async.
One last example I have. Imagine if you had to do multiple blocking operations in a function and wanted to call asynchronously. What would you prefer?
static void DoOperationsAsyncOld()
{
Task op1 = new Task(DoOperation1Async);
op1.ContinueWith(t1 =>
{
Task op2 = new Task(DoOperation2Async);
op2.ContinueWith(t2 =>
{
Task op3 = new Task(DoOperation3Async);
op3.ContinueWith(t3 =>
{
DoQuickOperation();
}
op3.Start();
}
op2.Start();
}
op1.Start();
}
static async void DoOperationsAsyncNew()
{
await DoOperation1Async();
await DoOperation2Async();
await DoOperation3Async();
DoQuickOperation();
}
Read the whitepaper, it actually has a lot of practical examples like writing parallel tasks and others.
I can't wait to start playing with this either in the CTP or when .NET 5.0 finally makes it out.

The main scenarios are any scenario that involves high latency. That is, lots of time between "ask for a result" and "obtain a result". Network requests are the most obvious example of high latency scenarios, followed closely by I/O in general, and then by lengthy computations that are CPU bound on another core.
However, there are potentially other scenarios that this technology will mesh nicely with. For example, consider scripting the logic of a FPS game. Suppose you have a button click event handler. When the player clicks the button you want to play a siren for two seconds to alert the enemies, and then open the door for ten seconds. Wouldn't it be nice to say something like:
button.Disable();
await siren.Activate();
await Delay(2000);
await siren.Deactivate();
await door.Open();
await Delay(10000);
await door.Close();
await Delay(1000);
button.Enable();
Each task gets queued up on the UI thread, so nothing blocks, and each one resumes the click handler at the right point after its job is finished.

I've found another nice use-case for this today: you can await user interaction.
For example, if one form has a button that opens another form:
Form toolWindow;
async void button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) {
if (toolWindow != null) {
toolWindow.Focus();
} else {
toolWindow = new Form();
toolWindow.Show();
await toolWindow.OnClosed();
toolWindow = null;
}
}
Granted, this isn't really any simpler than
toolWindow.Closed += delegate { toolWindow = null; }
But I think it nicely demonstrates what await can do. And once the code in the event handler is non-trivial, await make programming much easier. Think about the user having to click a sequence of buttons:
async void ButtonSeries()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Button b = new Button();
b.Text = i.ToString();
this.Controls.Add(b);
await b.OnClick();
this.Controls.Remove(b);
}
}
Sure, you could do this with normal event handlers, but it would require you to take apart the loop and convert it into something much harder to understand.
Remember that await can be used with anything that gets completed at some point in the future. Here's the extension method Button.OnClick() to make the above work:
public static AwaitableEvent OnClick(this Button button)
{
return new AwaitableEvent(h => button.Click += h, h => button.Click -= h);
}
sealed class AwaitableEvent
{
Action<EventHandler> register, deregister;
public AwaitableEvent(Action<EventHandler> register, Action<EventHandler> deregister)
{
this.register = register;
this.deregister = deregister;
}
public EventAwaiter GetAwaiter()
{
return new EventAwaiter(this);
}
}
sealed class EventAwaiter
{
AwaitableEvent e;
public EventAwaiter(AwaitableEvent e) { this.e = e; }
Action callback;
public bool BeginAwait(Action callback)
{
this.callback = callback;
e.register(Handler);
return true;
}
public void Handler(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
callback();
}
public void EndAwait()
{
e.deregister(Handler);
}
}
Unfortunately it doesn't seem possible to add the GetAwaiter() method directly to EventHandler (allowing await button.Click;) because then the method wouldn't know how to register/deregister that event.
It's a bit of boilerplate, but the AwaitableEvent class can be re-used for all events (not just UI). And with a minor modification and adding some generics, you could allow retrieving the EventArgs:
MouseEventArgs e = await button.OnMouseDown();
I could see this being useful with some more complex UI gestures (drag'n'drop, mouse gestures, ...) - though you'd have to add support for cancelling the current gesture.

There are some samples and demos in the CTP that don't use the Net, and even some that don't do any I/O.
And it does apply to all multithreaded / parallel problem areas (that already exist).
Async and Await are a new (easier) way of structuring all parallel code, be it CPU-bound or I/O bound. The biggest improvement is in areas where before C#5 you had to use the APM (IAsyncResult) model, or the event model (BackgroundWorker, WebClient). I think that is why those examples lead the parade now.

A GUI clock is a good example; say you want to draw a clock, that updates the time shown every second. Conceptually, you want to write
while true do
sleep for 1 second
display the new time on the clock
and with await (or with F# async) to asynchronously sleep, you can write this code to run on the UI thread in a non-blocking fashion.
http://lorgonblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/f-async-on-the-client-side/

The async extensions are useful in some cases when you have an asynchronous operation. An asynchronous operation has a definite start and completion. When asynchronous operations complete, they may have a result or an error. (Cancellation is treated as a special kind of error).
Asynchronous operations are useful in three situations (broadly speaking):
Keeping your UI responsive. Any time you have a long-running operation (whether CPU-bound or I/O-bound), make it asynchronous.
Scaling your servers. Using asynchronous operations judiciously on the server side may help your severs to scale. e.g., asynchronous ASP.NET pages may make use of async operations. However, this is not always a win; you need to evaluate your scalability bottlenecks first.
Providing a clean asynchronous API in a library or shared code. async is excellent for reusability.
As you begin to adopt the async way of doing things, you'll find the third situation becoming more common. async code works best with other async code, so asynchronous code kind of "grows" through the codebase.
There are a couple of types of concurrency where async is not the best tool:
Parallelization. A parallel algorithm may use many cores (CPUs, GPUs, computers) to solve a problem more quickly.
Asynchronous events. Asynchronous events happen all the time, independent of your program. They often do not have a "completion." Normally, your program will subscribe to an asynchronous event stream, receive some number of updates, and then unsubscribe. Your program can treat the subscribe and unsubscribe as a "start" and "completion", but the actual event stream never really stops.
Parallel operations are best expressed using PLINQ or Parallel, since they have a lot of built-in support for partitioning, limited concurrency, etc. A parallel operation may easily be wrapped in an awaitable by running it from a ThreadPool thread (Task.Factory.StartNew).
Asynchronous events do not map well to asynchronous operations. One problem is that an asynchronous operation has a single result at its point of completion. Asynchronous events may have any number of updates. Rx is the natural language for dealing with asynchronous events.
There are some mappings from an Rx event stream to an asynchronous operation, but none of them are ideal for all situations. It's more natural to consume asynchronous operations by Rx, rather than the other way around. IMO, the best way of approaching this is to use asynchronous operations in your libraries and lower-level code as much as possible, and if you need Rx at some point, then use Rx from there on up.

Here is probably a good example of how not to use the new async feature (that's not writing a new RSS client or Twitter app), mid-method overload points in a virtual method call. To be honest, i am not sure there is any way to create more than a single overload point per method.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
namespace AsyncText
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Derived d = new Derived();
TaskEx.Run(() => d.DoStuff()).Wait();
System.Console.Read();
}
public class Base
{
protected string SomeData { get; set; }
protected async Task DeferProcessing()
{
await TaskEx.Run(() => Thread.Sleep(1) );
return;
}
public async virtual Task DoStuff() {
Console.WriteLine("Begin Base");
Console.WriteLine(SomeData);
await DeferProcessing();
Console.WriteLine("End Base");
Console.WriteLine(SomeData);
}
}
public class Derived : Base
{
public async override Task DoStuff()
{
Console.WriteLine("Begin Derived");
SomeData = "Hello";
var x = base.DoStuff();
SomeData = "World";
Console.WriteLine("Mid 1 Derived");
await x;
Console.WriteLine("EndDerived");
}
}
}
}
Output Is:
Begin Derived
Begin Base
Hello
Mid 1 Derived
End Base
World
EndDerived
With certain inheritance hierarchies (namely using command pattern) i find myself wanting to do stuff like this occasionally.

here is an article about showing how to use the 'async' syntax in a non-networked scenario that involves UI and multiple actions.