We Keep Coding

Exception from PLinq AsParallel async crashes the app

My question is about capturing exceptions in ForAll method under Plinq
I was trying to run tasks concurently with setting max number of threads.
Using
enumerable
.AsParallel()
.WithDegreeOfParallelism(100)
.ForAll(async item => await AsyncTask())
It works, but if AsyncTask throws exception the app crashes.
I have done the following test:
try
{
IEnumerable<string> enumerable = new List<string> { "st", "st" };
enumerable.AsParallel()
.ForAll(async f =>
{
try
{
throw new Exception(); // Or await AsyncTask that throws this
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.ToString(); **// This Exception is captured**
throw e;
}
});
}
catch (Exception e) **// THIS IS NOT CAPTURED AND THE APP CRASHES**
{
e.ToString();
}
And I would like to understand the reasons for this
And other options to implement

enumerable.AsParallel().ForAll() executes the given action for each element of your enumeration in parallel. Since your given action is async by itself, ForAll() does not wait until all actions completed. In this case the executed code leaves the try..catch block before your AsyncTask() method throws the exception. This may lead to an unhandled exception, which crashes your app.
It does not matter, that you try to await the AsyncTask(), because ForAll() gets a plain Action and does not await the result of your AsyncTask().
A possible solution could be to start your AsyncTasks for each element without AsParallel().ForEach() and await the results later inside your try..catch.
When storing the
Task or Task<T>
result in a list you can check if any task was throwing an exception using the task.Exception property.
You can do something like this:
private async Task DoSomethingAsync()
{
try
{
IEnumerable<string> enumerable = new List<string> { "st", "st" };
// start all tasks and store them in an array
var tasks = enumerable.Select(TaskAsync).ToArray();
// do something more without waiting until all tasks above completed
// ...
// await all tasks
var completionTask = Task.WhenAll(tasks);
await completionTask;
// handle task exception if any exists
if (completionTask.Status == TaskStatus.Faulted)
{
foreach (var task in tasks)
{
if (task.Exception != null)
{
// throw an exception or handle the exception, e.g. log the exceptions to file / database
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// handle your exception, e.g. write a log to file / database
}
}
private Task TaskAsync(string item)
{
// Task.Delay() is just a placeholder
// do some async stuff here, e.g. access web services or a database
return Task.Delay(10000);
}

Task swallows the exception thrown

In the method below, when an exception is thrown in the TRY block, it is being swallowed. How can I make it throw the exception so that it gets written to log in the catch block? The log writer works fine. Thanks!
public static bool MonitorQueueEmptyTask(string queueName, CancellationTokenSource tokenSource)
{
try
{
Task<bool> task = Task.Factory.StartNew<bool>(() =>
{
while (!QueueManager.IsQueueEmpty(queueName))
{
if (tokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
break;
}
Thread.Sleep(5000);
throw new Exception("Throwing an error!"); //THIS THROW IS SWALLOWED -- NO LOG WRITTEN ON CATCH
};
return true;
}, tokenSource.Token);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
WriteExceptionToLog(ex.Stack); //it's not that this method doesn't work. it works fine.
return false;
}
return true;
}

If you want to fire and forget, you can attach a continuation using ContinueWith. The current try-catch will not help you at all, as the exception is encapsulated inside the Task. If this is "fire and forget", than you can log the exception:
public static Task MonitorQueueEmptyTask(
string queueName, CancellationTokenSource tokenSource)
{
return Task.Factory.StartNew<bool>(() =>
{
while (!QueueManager.IsQueueEmpty(queueName))
{
if (tokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
break;
}
Thread.Sleep(5000);
throw new Exception("Throwing an error!");
};
}, tokenSource.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning).ContinueWith(faultedTask =>
{
WriteExceptionToLog(faultedTask.Exception);
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
This, in turn, will not propagate the exception after it's thrown, but will provide a mechanism to log the error. If you want the exception to be properly handled, you can register to TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException. Additionally, you can set ThrowUnobservedTaskExceptions enabled="true" in your configuration if you want unhandled exceptions to terminate your application. ContinueWith will consider the exception "handled" once you look at the task.Exception property.

The exception is not swallowed; it's just that it doesn't occur on the thread that executes the try/catch block, but on the separate Task thread.
If you don't observe the task's result or exception, when the task is eventually garbage collected, it will throw an exception saying that the task was not observed. Unless you catch that by handling the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException, it will crash the process.

I also had a problem with this, and i really dislike the whole idea of App.config, so can provide another solution to prevent the exceptions disappearing :)
Save the exception then throw it after the Task.Run has completed, e.g.
private async void Function() {
Exception save_exception = null;
await Task.Run(() => {
try {
// Do Stuff
} catch (Exception ex) {
save_exception = ex;
}
}).ContinueWith(new Action<Task>(task => {
if (save_exception != null)
throw save_exception;
// Do Stuff
}));
}

How to cancel Task but wait until it finishes?

I have threaded task wich performs some operation in loop:
static void TaskAction(CancellationToken ct)
{
while (SomeCondition())
{
DoSomeSeriousJob();
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
}
static void DoSomeSeriousJob()
{
Console.WriteLine("Serious job started");
Thread.Sleep(5000);
Console.WriteLine("Serious job done");
}
I start it and then cancel after some period of time:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => TaskAction(cts.Token), cts.Token);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
cts.Cancel();
This operation must be finished correctly, I don't want to interrupt it. But I want to send a cancellation request to my task and wait until it finishes correctly (by which I mean it gets to some point in code).
I tryed following approaches:
1. Wait(CancellationToken ct)
try
{
task.Wait(cts.Token);
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task cancelled");
}
// Must be joined here.
In this case program returns immediately from Wait(). The task continues to run until ThrowIfCancellationRequested() but if main thread exits the task gets interrupted too.
2. Wait()
try
{
task.Wait();
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task cancelled");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.ToString());
}
Here main thread waits for completion but at the end AggregateException is risen with InnerException = TaskCancelledException (not OperationCancelledException).
3. Check IsCancellationRequested() and no exceptions
static void TaskAction(CancellationToken ct)
{
while (SomeCondition())
{
DoSomeSeriousJob();
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
break;
}
}
// ...
task.Wait();
In this case no exceptions are risen but the task gets status RanToCompletion in the end. This is not distiguishable from correct completion when SomeCodition() starts to return false.
All these problem have easy workarounds but I wonder, may be I'm missing something? Could anybody advise me better solution?

If you want to wait for the task to complete (or gets cancelled) synchronously, you can try this:
cts.Cancel();
Task.Run(async () => {
try {
await task;
}
catch (OperationCanceledException ex) {
// ...
}
).Wait();
So that you can directly catch OperationCanceledException instead of catching an AggregateException.
Edit:
Wait(CanecllationToken)
This approach won't work for that purpose.
MSDN statement:
Waits for the Task to complete execution. The wait terminates if a cancellation token is canceled before the task completes.
Wait()
You can use this approach but as you can see, you should expect an AggregateException not OperationCanceledException. It is also specified in documents of the method.
The AggregateException.InnerExceptions collection contains a TaskCanceledException object.
So in this approach, in order to make sure operation is cancelled, you can check if inner expection contains a TaskCanceledException or not.
Check IsCancellationRequested() and no exceptions
In this way, this is obvious that no exception is thrown and you can't find out if the operation is cancelled or not.
If you don't want to wait synchronously, everything works as expected:
cts.Cancel();
try {
await task;
}
catch (OperationCanceledException ex) {
// ...
}

Try this:
try
{
task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
}
catch (OperationCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task cancelled");
}
You'll get an OperationCanceledException and it won't be wrapped with AggregateException.

TaskCanceledException with ContinueWith

I've been trying to figure out why I'm getting a TaskCanceledException for a bit of async code that has recently started misbehaving. I've reduced my issue down to a small code snippet that has me scratching my head:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
RunTest();
}
private static void RunTest()
{
Task.Delay(1000).ContinueWith(t => Console.WriteLine("{0}", t.Exception), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted).Wait();
}
As far as I'm aware, this should simply pause for a second and then close. The ContinueWith won't be called (this only applies to my actual use-case). However, instead I'm getting a TaskCanceledException and I've no idea where that is coming from!

You are using the wrong taskcontinuationoption:
See following link : https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.tasks.taskcontinuationoptions%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
It says :
Specifies that the continuation task should be scheduled only if its antecedent threw an unhandled exception. This option is not valid for multi-task continuations.

As guys said above this call requires just antecedent-task in faulted-status otherwise will throw TaskCanceledException, for this concrete case you can generalize ContinueWith to process all statuses:
await Task.Delay(1000).ContinueWith(
task =>
{
/* take into account that Canceled-task throw on next row the TaskCancelledException */
if (!task.IsFaulted) {
return;
}
Console.WriteLine("{0}", task.Exception);
// do smth like 'throw task.Exception.InnerException'
});

I also received this error:
The block of code looked like this:
private void CallMediator<TRequest>(TRequest request) where TRequest : IRequest<Unit>
{
_ = Task.Run(async () =>
{
var mediator = _serviceScopeFactory.CreateScope().ServiceProvider.GetService<IMediator>()!;
await mediator.Send(request).ContinueWith(LogException, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
});
}
private void LogException(Task task)
{
if (task.Exception != null)
{
_logger.LogError(task.Exception, "{ErrorMessage}", task.Exception.Message);
}
}
Reading the documentation for the ContinueWith method, it has the following remarks:
The returned Task will not be scheduled for execution until the current task has completed. If the continuation criteria specified through the continuationOptions parameter are not met, the continuation task will be canceled instead of scheduled.
So for me, it called the first task (mediator.Send(request)), then it continued with the task ContinueWith(...), which is the one I awaited. However, since an exception had not occurred in the first task, the second task was cancelled. Therefore, when awaiting the second task, it threw a TaskCanceledException.
What I did, was to change the code to this:
private void CallMediator<TRequest>(TRequest request) where TRequest : IRequest<Unit>
{
_ = Task.Run(async () =>
{
var mediator = _serviceScopeFactory.CreateScope().ServiceProvider.GetService<IMediator>()!;
try
{
_ = await mediator.Send(request);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_logger.LogError(ex, "{ErrorMessage}", ex.Message);
}
});
}
Instead of using .ContinueWith(...), I have replaced it with just a regular try-catch block in case of the task I am interested in fails. I think this simplifies the code and makes it more readable.
In the question, there is this line of code:
Task.Delay(1000).ContinueWith(t => Console.WriteLine("{0}", t.Exception), TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted).Wait();
I would rewrite it to:
try
{
Task.Delay(1000).Wait();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}", ex);
}

Catching Error when using Task.Factory

i am using the following
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoPrintConfigPage(serial));
then the function i am calling looks like this
private void DoPrintConfigPage(string serial)
{
//do printing work
}
My problem is an exception is being thrown inside the thread and not being handled.
I have tried wrapping it in a try catch
try
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoPrintConfigPage(serial));
}
catch (Exception ex) { }
but it still is not catching the error and thus crashing the application.
How can I catch exceptions in the main thread so I can handle them?
Update
I have made the changes recommended below and still it is saying the exception is unhandled
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoPrintConfigPage(serial))
.ContinueWith(tsk =>
{
MessageBox.Show("something broke");
},TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
then in my DoConfigPage I added another try catch.
In this catch is now where it is crashing and saying the exception being thrown was unhandled, what am I missing?
private void DoPrintConfigPage(string serial)
{
try
{
//call the print function
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex; //it is crashing here and saying it is unhandled
}
}
I also tried what Eric J. suggested with the same results
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoPrintConfigPage(serial));
try
{
task.Wait();
}
catch (AggregateException ex) { MessageBox.Show("something broke"); }

Alternatively, you can chain your task creation and add a ContinueWith:
var job = Task.Factory
.StartNew(...)
.ContinueWith(tsk =>
{
// check tsk for exception and handle
});
EDIT: This snippet, when run, pops up the message box for me:
void Main()
{
var serial = "some serial";
var task = Task.Factory
.StartNew(() => DoPrintConfigPage(serial))
.ContinueWith(tsk =>
{
MessageBox.Show("something broke");
var flattened = tsk.Exception.Flatten();
// NOTE: Don't actually handle exceptions this way, m'kay?
flattened.Handle(ex => { MessageBox.Show("Error:" + ex.Message); return true;});
},TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
public void DoPrintConfigPage(string serial)
{
throw new Exception("BOOM!");
}

Your try block is exited right after you start the new task, because that method just continues to run.
Instead you can catch the Exception as an AggregateException where you wait for the task (or multiple tasks) to complete:
var task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
throw new MyCustomException("I'm bad, but not too bad!");
});
try
{
task1.Wait();
}
catch (AggregateException ae)
{
// Assume we know what's going on with this particular exception.
// Rethrow anything else. AggregateException.Handle provides
// another way to express this. See later example.
foreach (var e in ae.InnerExceptions)
{
if (e is MyCustomException)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
}
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997415.aspx

If you are not waiting on your task, I think the easiest solution is found in Task.Exception:
Gets the AggregateException that caused the Task to end prematurely.
If the Task completed successfully or has not yet thrown any
exceptions, this will return null.
I am using something like this:
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoStuffHere())
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
if (task.Exception != null)
Log("log all the exceptions!");
});

You should also know about
System.Threading.Tasks.TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException.
If you are in the business of creating "fire and forget" Task instances, you'll want to subscribe to that event at the start of your program.

Maybe you are trying to catch a Corrupted State Exception. Since .NET 4 applications are unable to catch such exceptions by default. You could try to add the legacyCorruptedState­­ExceptionsPolicy=true entry to your configuration file as stated in the MSDN article linked above.