Best data structure for thread-safe list of subscriptions?

Best data structure for thread-safe list of subscriptions? - c#

I am trying to build a subscription list. Let's take the example:
list of Publishers, each having a list of Magazines, each having a list of subscribers
Publishers --> Magazines --> Subscribers
Makes sense to use of a Dictionary within a Dictionary within a Dictionary in C#. Is it possible to do this without locking the entire structure when adding/removing a subscriber without race conditions?
Also the code gets messy very quickly in C# which makes me think I am not going down the right path. Is there an easier way to do this? Here are the constructor and subscribe method:
Note: The code uses Source, Type, Subscriber instead of the names above
Source ---> Type ---> Subscriber
public class SubscriptionCollection<SourceT, TypeT, SubscriberT>
{
// Race conditions here I'm sure! Not locking anything yet but should revisit at some point
ConcurrentDictionary<SourceT, ConcurrentDictionary<TypeT, ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>>> SourceTypeSubs;
public SubscriptionCollection()
{
SourceTypeSubs = new ConcurrentDictionary<SourceT, ConcurrentDictionary<TypeT, ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>>>();
}
public void Subscribe(SourceT sourceT, TypeT typeT, SubscriberT subT) {
ConcurrentDictionary<TypeT, ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>> typesANDsubs;
if (SourceTypeSubs.TryGetValue(sourceT, out typesANDsubs))
{
ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo> subs;
if (typesANDsubs.TryGetValue(typeT, out subs))
{
SubscriptionInfo subInfo;
if (subs.TryGetValue(subT, out subInfo))
{
// Subscription already exists - do nothing
}
else
{
subs.TryAdd(subT, new SubscriptionInfo());
}
}
else
{
// This type does not exist - first add type, then subscription
var newType = new ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>();
newType.TryAdd(subT, new SubscriptionInfo());
typesANDsubs.TryAdd(typeT, newType);
}
}
else
{
// this source does not exist - first add source, then type, then subscriptions
var newSource = new ConcurrentDictionary<TypeT, ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>>();
var newType = new ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>();
newType.TryAdd(subT, new SubscriptionInfo());
newSource.TryAdd(typeT, newType);
SourceTypeSubs.TryAdd(sourceT, newSource);
};
}

If you use ConcurrentDictionary, like you already do, you don't need locking, that's already taken care of.
But you still have to think about race conditions and how to deal with them. Fortunately, ConcurrentDictionary gives you exactly what you need. For example, if you have two threads, that both try to subscribe to source that doesn't exist yet at the same time, only one of them will succeed. But that's why TryAdd() returns whether the addition was successful. You can't just ignore its return value. If it returns false, you know some other thread already added that source, so you can retrieve the dictionary now.
Another option is to use the GetOrAdd() method. It retrieves already existing value, and creates it if it doesn't exist yet.
I would rewrite your code like this (and make it much simpler along the way):
public void Subscribe(SourceT sourceT, TypeT typeT, SubscriberT subT)
{
var typesAndSubs = SourceTypeSubs.GetOrAdd(sourceT,
_ => new ConcurrentDictionary<TypeT, ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>>());
var subs = typesAndSubs.GetOrAdd(typeT,
_ => new ConcurrentDictionary<SubscriberT, SubscriptionInfo>());
subs.GetOrAdd(subT, _ => new SubscriptionInfo());
}

Related

For Each Row: The collection has been changed, the enumeration operation may not be performed [duplicate]

I can't get to the bottom of this error, because when the debugger is attached, it does not seem to occur.
Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute
Below is the code.
This is a WCF server in a Windows service. The method NotifySubscribers() is called by the service whenever there is a data event (at random intervals, but not very often - about 800 times per day).
When a Windows Forms client subscribes, the subscriber ID is added to the subscribers dictionary, and when the client unsubscribes, it is deleted from the dictionary. The error happens when (or after) a client unsubscribes. It appears that the next time the NotifySubscribers() method is called, the foreach() loop fails with the error in the subject line. The method writes the error into the application log as shown in the code below. When a debugger is attached and a client unsubscribes, the code executes fine.
Do you see a problem with this code? Do I need to make the dictionary thread-safe?
[ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode=InstanceContextMode.Single)]
public class SubscriptionServer : ISubscriptionServer
{
private static IDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> subscribers;
public SubscriptionServer()
{
subscribers = new Dictionary<Guid, Subscriber>();
}
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values)
{
try
{
s.Callback.SignalData(sr);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
DCS.WriteToApplicationLog(e.Message,
System.Diagnostics.EventLogEntryType.Error);
UnsubscribeEvent(s.ClientId);
}
}
}
public Guid SubscribeEvent(string clientDescription)
{
Subscriber subscriber = new Subscriber();
subscriber.Callback = OperationContext.Current.
GetCallbackChannel<IDCSCallback>();
subscribers.Add(subscriber.ClientId, subscriber);
return subscriber.ClientId;
}
public void UnsubscribeEvent(Guid clientId)
{
try
{
subscribers.Remove(clientId);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Unsubscribe Error " +
e.Message);
}
}
}

What's likely happening is that SignalData is indirectly changing the subscribers dictionary under the hood during the loop and leading to that message. You can verify this by changing
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values)
To
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values.ToList())
If I'm right, the problem will disappear.
Calling subscribers.Values.ToList() copies the values of subscribers.Values to a separate list at the start of the foreach. Nothing else has access to this list (it doesn't even have a variable name!), so nothing can modify it inside the loop.

When a subscriber unsubscribes you are changing contents of the collection of Subscribers during enumeration.
There are several ways to fix this, one being changing the for loop to use an explicit .ToList():
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values.ToList())
{
^^^^^^^^^
...

A more efficient way, in my opinion, is to have another list that you declare that you put anything that is "to be removed" into. Then after you finish your main loop (without the .ToList()), you do another loop over the "to be removed" list, removing each entry as it happens. So in your class you add:
private List<Guid> toBeRemoved = new List<Guid>();
Then you change it to:
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
toBeRemoved.Clear();
...your unchanged code skipped...
foreach ( Guid clientId in toBeRemoved )
{
try
{
subscribers.Remove(clientId);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Unsubscribe Error " +
e.Message);
}
}
}
...your unchanged code skipped...
public void UnsubscribeEvent(Guid clientId)
{
toBeRemoved.Add( clientId );
}
This will not only solve your problem, it will prevent you from having to keep creating a list from your dictionary, which is expensive if there are a lot of subscribers in there. Assuming the list of subscribers to be removed on any given iteration is lower than the total number in the list, this should be faster. But of course feel free to profile it to be sure that's the case if there's any doubt in your specific usage situation.

Why this error?
In general .Net collections do not support being enumerated and modified at the same time. If you try to modify the collection list during enumeration, it raises an exception. So the issue behind this error is, we can not modify the list/dictionary while we are looping through the same.
One of the solutions
If we iterate a dictionary using a list of its keys, in parallel we can modify the dictionary object, as we are iterating through the key-collection and
not the dictionary(and iterating its key collection).
Example
//get key collection from dictionary into a list to loop through
List<int> keys = new List<int>(Dictionary.Keys);
// iterating key collection using a simple for-each loop
foreach (int key in keys)
{
// Now we can perform any modification with values of the dictionary.
Dictionary[key] = Dictionary[key] - 1;
}
Here is a blog post about this solution.
And for a deep dive in StackOverflow: Why this error occurs?

Okay so what helped me was iterating backwards. I was trying to remove an entry from a list but iterating upwards and it screwed up the loop because the entry didn't exist anymore:
for (int x = myList.Count - 1; x > -1; x--)
{
myList.RemoveAt(x);
}

The accepted answer is imprecise and incorrect in the worst case . If changes are made during ToList(), you can still end up with an error. Besides lock, which performance and thread-safety needs to be taken into consideration if you have a public member, a proper solution can be using immutable types.
In general, an immutable type means that you can't change the state of it once created.
So your code should look like:
public class SubscriptionServer : ISubscriptionServer
{
private static ImmutableDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> subscribers = ImmutableDictionary<Guid, Subscriber>.Empty;
public void SubscribeEvent(string id)
{
subscribers = subscribers.Add(Guid.NewGuid(), new Subscriber());
}
public void NotifyEvent()
{
foreach(var sub in subscribers.Values)
{
//.....This is always safe
}
}
//.........
}
This can be especially useful if you have a public member. Other classes can always foreach on the immutable types without worrying about the collection being modified.

I want to point out other case not reflected in any of the answers. I have a Dictionary<Tkey,TValue> shared in a multi threaded app, which uses a ReaderWriterLockSlim to protect the read and write operations. This is a reading method that throws the exception:
public IEnumerable<Data> GetInfo()
{
List<Data> info = null;
_cacheLock.EnterReadLock();
try
{
info = _cache.Values.SelectMany(ce => ce.Data); // Ad .Tolist() to avoid exc.
}
finally
{
_cacheLock.ExitReadLock();
}
return info;
}
In general, it works fine, but from time to time I get the exception. The problem is a subtlety of LINQ: this code returns an IEnumerable<Info>, which is still not enumerated after leaving the section protected by the lock. So, it can be changed by other threads before being enumerated, leading to the exception. The solution is to force the enumeration, for example with .ToList() as shown in the comment. In this way, the enumerable is already enumerated before leaving the protected section.
So, if using LINQ in a multi-threaded application, be aware to always materialize the queries before leaving the protected regions.

InvalidOperationException-
An InvalidOperationException has occurred. It reports a "collection was modified" in a foreach-loop
Use break statement, Once the object is removed.
ex:
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
foreach (var item in list)
{
if(condition)
{
list.remove(item);
break;
}
}

Actually the problem seems to me that you are removing elements from the list and expecting to continue to read the list as if nothing had happened.
What you really need to do is to start from the end and back to the begining. Even if you remove elements from the list you will be able to continue reading it.

I had the same issue, and it was solved when I used a for loop instead of foreach.
// foreach (var item in itemsToBeLast)
for (int i = 0; i < itemsToBeLast.Count; i++)
{
var matchingItem = itemsToBeLast.FirstOrDefault(item => item.Detach);
if (matchingItem != null)
{
itemsToBeLast.Remove(matchingItem);
continue;
}
allItems.Add(itemsToBeLast[i]);// (attachDetachItem);
}

I've seen many options for this but to me this one was the best.
ListItemCollection collection = new ListItemCollection();
foreach (ListItem item in ListBox1.Items)
{
if (item.Selected)
collection.Add(item);
}
Then simply loop through the collection.
Be aware that a ListItemCollection can contain duplicates. By default there is nothing preventing duplicates being added to the collection. To avoid duplicates you can do this:
ListItemCollection collection = new ListItemCollection();
foreach (ListItem item in ListBox1.Items)
{
if (item.Selected && !collection.Contains(item))
collection.Add(item);
}

This way should cover a situation of concurrency when the function is called again while is still executing (and items need used only once):
while (list.Count > 0)
{
string Item = list[0];
list.RemoveAt(0);
// do here what you need to do with item
}
If the function get called while is still executing items will not reiterate from the first again as they get deleted as soon as they get used.
Should not affect performance much for small lists.

There is one link where it elaborated very well & solution is also given.
Try it if you got proper solution please post here so other can understand.
Given solution is ok then like the post so other can try these solution.
for you reference original link :-
https://bensonxion.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/serializing-an-ienumerable-produces-collection-was-modified-enumeration-operation-may-not-execute/
When we use .Net Serialization classes to serialize an object where its definition contains an Enumerable type, i.e.
collection, you will be easily getting InvalidOperationException saying "Collection was modified;
enumeration operation may not execute" where your coding is under multi-thread scenarios.
The bottom cause is that serialization classes will iterate through collection via enumerator, as such,
problem goes to trying to iterate through a collection while modifying it.
First solution, we can simply use lock as a synchronization solution to ensure that
the operation to the List object can only be executed from one thread at a time.
Obviously, you will get performance penalty that
if you want to serialize a collection of that object, then for each of them, the lock will be applied.
Well, .Net 4.0 which makes dealing with multi-threading scenarios handy.
for this serializing Collection field problem, I found we can just take benefit from ConcurrentQueue(Check MSDN)class,
which is a thread-safe and FIFO collection and makes code lock-free.
Using this class, in its simplicity, the stuff you need to modify for your code are replacing Collection type with it,
use Enqueue to add an element to the end of ConcurrentQueue, remove those lock code.
Or, if the scenario you are working on do require collection stuff like List, you will need a few more code to adapt ConcurrentQueue into your fields.
BTW, ConcurrentQueue doesnât have a Clear method due to underlying algorithm which doesnât permit atomically clearing of the collection.
so you have to do it yourself, the fastest way is to re-create a new empty ConcurrentQueue for a replacement.

Here is a specific scenario that warrants a specialized approach:
The Dictionary is enumerated frequently.
The Dictionary is modified infrequently.
In this scenario creating a copy of the Dictionary (or the Dictionary.Values) before every enumeration can be quite costly. My idea about solving this problem is to reuse the same cached copy in multiple enumerations, and watch an IEnumerator of the original Dictionary for exceptions. The enumerator will be cached along with the copied data, and interrogated before starting a new enumeration. In case of an exception the cached copy will be discarded, and a new one will be created. Here is my implementation of this idea:
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections.ObjectModel;
using System.Linq;
public class EnumerableSnapshot<T> : IEnumerable<T>, IDisposable
{
private IEnumerable<T> _source;
private IEnumerator<T> _enumerator;
private ReadOnlyCollection<T> _cached;
public EnumerableSnapshot(IEnumerable<T> source)
{
_source = source ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
if (_source == null) throw new ObjectDisposedException(this.GetType().Name);
if (_enumerator == null)
{
_enumerator = _source.GetEnumerator();
_cached = new ReadOnlyCollection<T>(_source.ToArray());
}
else
{
var modified = false;
if (_source is ICollection collection) // C# 7 syntax
{
modified = _cached.Count != collection.Count;
}
if (!modified)
{
try
{
_enumerator.MoveNext();
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
modified = true;
}
}
if (modified)
{
_enumerator.Dispose();
_enumerator = _source.GetEnumerator();
_cached = new ReadOnlyCollection<T>(_source.ToArray());
}
}
return _cached.GetEnumerator();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_enumerator?.Dispose();
_enumerator = null;
_cached = null;
_source = null;
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => GetEnumerator();
}
public static class EnumerableSnapshotExtensions
{
public static EnumerableSnapshot<T> ToEnumerableSnapshot<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source) => new EnumerableSnapshot<T>(source);
}
Usage example:
private static IDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> _subscribers;
private static EnumerableSnapshot<Subscriber> _subscribersSnapshot;
//...(in the constructor)
_subscribers = new Dictionary<Guid, Subscriber>();
_subscribersSnapshot = _subscribers.Values.ToEnumerableSnapshot();
// ...(elsewere)
foreach (var subscriber in _subscribersSnapshot)
{
//...
}
Unfortunately this idea cannot be used currently with the class Dictionary in .NET Core 3.0, because this class does not throw a Collection was modified exception when enumerated and the methods Remove and Clear are invoked. All other containers I checked are behaving consistently. I checked systematically these classes:
List<T>, Collection<T>, ObservableCollection<T>, HashSet<T>, SortedSet<T>, Dictionary<T,V> and SortedDictionary<T,V>. Only the two aforementioned methods of the Dictionary class in .NET Core are not invalidating the enumeration.
Update: I fixed the above problem by comparing also the lengths of the cached and the original collection. This fix assumes that the dictionary will be passed directly as an argument to the EnumerableSnapshot's constructor, and its identity will not be hidden by (for example) a projection like: dictionary.Select(e => e).ΤοEnumerableSnapshot().
Important: The above class is not thread safe. It is intended to be used from code running exclusively in a single thread.

You can copy subscribers dictionary object to a same type of temporary dictionary object and then iterate the temporary dictionary object using foreach loop.

So a different way to solve this problem would be instead of removing the elements create a new dictionary and only add the elements you didnt want to remove then replace the original dictionary with the new one. I don't think this is too much of an efficiency problem because it does not increase the number of times you iterate over the structure.

Avoid collection was modified enumeration operation may not execute [duplicate]

I can't get to the bottom of this error, because when the debugger is attached, it does not seem to occur.
Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute
Below is the code.
This is a WCF server in a Windows service. The method NotifySubscribers() is called by the service whenever there is a data event (at random intervals, but not very often - about 800 times per day).
When a Windows Forms client subscribes, the subscriber ID is added to the subscribers dictionary, and when the client unsubscribes, it is deleted from the dictionary. The error happens when (or after) a client unsubscribes. It appears that the next time the NotifySubscribers() method is called, the foreach() loop fails with the error in the subject line. The method writes the error into the application log as shown in the code below. When a debugger is attached and a client unsubscribes, the code executes fine.
Do you see a problem with this code? Do I need to make the dictionary thread-safe?
[ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode=InstanceContextMode.Single)]
public class SubscriptionServer : ISubscriptionServer
{
private static IDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> subscribers;
public SubscriptionServer()
{
subscribers = new Dictionary<Guid, Subscriber>();
}
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values)
{
try
{
s.Callback.SignalData(sr);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
DCS.WriteToApplicationLog(e.Message,
System.Diagnostics.EventLogEntryType.Error);
UnsubscribeEvent(s.ClientId);
}
}
}
public Guid SubscribeEvent(string clientDescription)
{
Subscriber subscriber = new Subscriber();
subscriber.Callback = OperationContext.Current.
GetCallbackChannel<IDCSCallback>();
subscribers.Add(subscriber.ClientId, subscriber);
return subscriber.ClientId;
}
public void UnsubscribeEvent(Guid clientId)
{
try
{
subscribers.Remove(clientId);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Unsubscribe Error " +
e.Message);
}
}
}

What's likely happening is that SignalData is indirectly changing the subscribers dictionary under the hood during the loop and leading to that message. You can verify this by changing
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values)
To
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values.ToList())
If I'm right, the problem will disappear.
Calling subscribers.Values.ToList() copies the values of subscribers.Values to a separate list at the start of the foreach. Nothing else has access to this list (it doesn't even have a variable name!), so nothing can modify it inside the loop.

When a subscriber unsubscribes you are changing contents of the collection of Subscribers during enumeration.
There are several ways to fix this, one being changing the for loop to use an explicit .ToList():
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values.ToList())
{
^^^^^^^^^
...

A more efficient way, in my opinion, is to have another list that you declare that you put anything that is "to be removed" into. Then after you finish your main loop (without the .ToList()), you do another loop over the "to be removed" list, removing each entry as it happens. So in your class you add:
private List<Guid> toBeRemoved = new List<Guid>();
Then you change it to:
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
toBeRemoved.Clear();
...your unchanged code skipped...
foreach ( Guid clientId in toBeRemoved )
{
try
{
subscribers.Remove(clientId);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Unsubscribe Error " +
e.Message);
}
}
}
...your unchanged code skipped...
public void UnsubscribeEvent(Guid clientId)
{
toBeRemoved.Add( clientId );
}
This will not only solve your problem, it will prevent you from having to keep creating a list from your dictionary, which is expensive if there are a lot of subscribers in there. Assuming the list of subscribers to be removed on any given iteration is lower than the total number in the list, this should be faster. But of course feel free to profile it to be sure that's the case if there's any doubt in your specific usage situation.

Why this error?
In general .Net collections do not support being enumerated and modified at the same time. If you try to modify the collection list during enumeration, it raises an exception. So the issue behind this error is, we can not modify the list/dictionary while we are looping through the same.
One of the solutions
If we iterate a dictionary using a list of its keys, in parallel we can modify the dictionary object, as we are iterating through the key-collection and
not the dictionary(and iterating its key collection).
Example
//get key collection from dictionary into a list to loop through
List<int> keys = new List<int>(Dictionary.Keys);
// iterating key collection using a simple for-each loop
foreach (int key in keys)
{
// Now we can perform any modification with values of the dictionary.
Dictionary[key] = Dictionary[key] - 1;
}
Here is a blog post about this solution.
And for a deep dive in StackOverflow: Why this error occurs?

Okay so what helped me was iterating backwards. I was trying to remove an entry from a list but iterating upwards and it screwed up the loop because the entry didn't exist anymore:
for (int x = myList.Count - 1; x > -1; x--)
{
myList.RemoveAt(x);
}

The accepted answer is imprecise and incorrect in the worst case . If changes are made during ToList(), you can still end up with an error. Besides lock, which performance and thread-safety needs to be taken into consideration if you have a public member, a proper solution can be using immutable types.
In general, an immutable type means that you can't change the state of it once created.
So your code should look like:
public class SubscriptionServer : ISubscriptionServer
{
private static ImmutableDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> subscribers = ImmutableDictionary<Guid, Subscriber>.Empty;
public void SubscribeEvent(string id)
{
subscribers = subscribers.Add(Guid.NewGuid(), new Subscriber());
}
public void NotifyEvent()
{
foreach(var sub in subscribers.Values)
{
//.....This is always safe
}
}
//.........
}
This can be especially useful if you have a public member. Other classes can always foreach on the immutable types without worrying about the collection being modified.

I want to point out other case not reflected in any of the answers. I have a Dictionary<Tkey,TValue> shared in a multi threaded app, which uses a ReaderWriterLockSlim to protect the read and write operations. This is a reading method that throws the exception:
public IEnumerable<Data> GetInfo()
{
List<Data> info = null;
_cacheLock.EnterReadLock();
try
{
info = _cache.Values.SelectMany(ce => ce.Data); // Ad .Tolist() to avoid exc.
}
finally
{
_cacheLock.ExitReadLock();
}
return info;
}
In general, it works fine, but from time to time I get the exception. The problem is a subtlety of LINQ: this code returns an IEnumerable<Info>, which is still not enumerated after leaving the section protected by the lock. So, it can be changed by other threads before being enumerated, leading to the exception. The solution is to force the enumeration, for example with .ToList() as shown in the comment. In this way, the enumerable is already enumerated before leaving the protected section.
So, if using LINQ in a multi-threaded application, be aware to always materialize the queries before leaving the protected regions.

InvalidOperationException-
An InvalidOperationException has occurred. It reports a "collection was modified" in a foreach-loop
Use break statement, Once the object is removed.
ex:
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
foreach (var item in list)
{
if(condition)
{
list.remove(item);
break;
}
}

Actually the problem seems to me that you are removing elements from the list and expecting to continue to read the list as if nothing had happened.
What you really need to do is to start from the end and back to the begining. Even if you remove elements from the list you will be able to continue reading it.

I had the same issue, and it was solved when I used a for loop instead of foreach.
// foreach (var item in itemsToBeLast)
for (int i = 0; i < itemsToBeLast.Count; i++)
{
var matchingItem = itemsToBeLast.FirstOrDefault(item => item.Detach);
if (matchingItem != null)
{
itemsToBeLast.Remove(matchingItem);
continue;
}
allItems.Add(itemsToBeLast[i]);// (attachDetachItem);
}

I've seen many options for this but to me this one was the best.
ListItemCollection collection = new ListItemCollection();
foreach (ListItem item in ListBox1.Items)
{
if (item.Selected)
collection.Add(item);
}
Then simply loop through the collection.
Be aware that a ListItemCollection can contain duplicates. By default there is nothing preventing duplicates being added to the collection. To avoid duplicates you can do this:
ListItemCollection collection = new ListItemCollection();
foreach (ListItem item in ListBox1.Items)
{
if (item.Selected && !collection.Contains(item))
collection.Add(item);
}

This way should cover a situation of concurrency when the function is called again while is still executing (and items need used only once):
while (list.Count > 0)
{
string Item = list[0];
list.RemoveAt(0);
// do here what you need to do with item
}
If the function get called while is still executing items will not reiterate from the first again as they get deleted as soon as they get used.
Should not affect performance much for small lists.

Here is a specific scenario that warrants a specialized approach:
The Dictionary is enumerated frequently.
The Dictionary is modified infrequently.
In this scenario creating a copy of the Dictionary (or the Dictionary.Values) before every enumeration can be quite costly. My idea about solving this problem is to reuse the same cached copy in multiple enumerations, and watch an IEnumerator of the original Dictionary for exceptions. The enumerator will be cached along with the copied data, and interrogated before starting a new enumeration. In case of an exception the cached copy will be discarded, and a new one will be created. Here is my implementation of this idea:
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections.ObjectModel;
using System.Linq;
public class EnumerableSnapshot<T> : IEnumerable<T>, IDisposable
{
private IEnumerable<T> _source;
private IEnumerator<T> _enumerator;
private ReadOnlyCollection<T> _cached;
public EnumerableSnapshot(IEnumerable<T> source)
{
_source = source ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
if (_source == null) throw new ObjectDisposedException(this.GetType().Name);
if (_enumerator == null)
{
_enumerator = _source.GetEnumerator();
_cached = new ReadOnlyCollection<T>(_source.ToArray());
}
else
{
var modified = false;
if (_source is ICollection collection) // C# 7 syntax
{
modified = _cached.Count != collection.Count;
}
if (!modified)
{
try
{
_enumerator.MoveNext();
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
modified = true;
}
}
if (modified)
{
_enumerator.Dispose();
_enumerator = _source.GetEnumerator();
_cached = new ReadOnlyCollection<T>(_source.ToArray());
}
}
return _cached.GetEnumerator();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_enumerator?.Dispose();
_enumerator = null;
_cached = null;
_source = null;
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => GetEnumerator();
}
public static class EnumerableSnapshotExtensions
{
public static EnumerableSnapshot<T> ToEnumerableSnapshot<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source) => new EnumerableSnapshot<T>(source);
}
Usage example:
private static IDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> _subscribers;
private static EnumerableSnapshot<Subscriber> _subscribersSnapshot;
//...(in the constructor)
_subscribers = new Dictionary<Guid, Subscriber>();
_subscribersSnapshot = _subscribers.Values.ToEnumerableSnapshot();
// ...(elsewere)
foreach (var subscriber in _subscribersSnapshot)
{
//...
}
Unfortunately this idea cannot be used currently with the class Dictionary in .NET Core 3.0, because this class does not throw a Collection was modified exception when enumerated and the methods Remove and Clear are invoked. All other containers I checked are behaving consistently. I checked systematically these classes:
List<T>, Collection<T>, ObservableCollection<T>, HashSet<T>, SortedSet<T>, Dictionary<T,V> and SortedDictionary<T,V>. Only the two aforementioned methods of the Dictionary class in .NET Core are not invalidating the enumeration.
Update: I fixed the above problem by comparing also the lengths of the cached and the original collection. This fix assumes that the dictionary will be passed directly as an argument to the EnumerableSnapshot's constructor, and its identity will not be hidden by (for example) a projection like: dictionary.Select(e => e).ΤοEnumerableSnapshot().
Important: The above class is not thread safe. It is intended to be used from code running exclusively in a single thread.

You can copy subscribers dictionary object to a same type of temporary dictionary object and then iterate the temporary dictionary object using foreach loop.

So a different way to solve this problem would be instead of removing the elements create a new dictionary and only add the elements you didnt want to remove then replace the original dictionary with the new one. I don't think this is too much of an efficiency problem because it does not increase the number of times you iterate over the structure.

Passing by reference to a thread C#?

I have a method that I intend to run on its own thread, but can't figure out how to pass the reference when setting up the thread.
private void ManageConnections(ref List<string> instanceAddresses)
{
int connected = Instances.Count();
if(instanceAddresses.Count() > connected)
{
int instancesToAdd = instanceAddresses.Count() - connected;
while(instancesToAdd != 0)
{
Channel channel = new Channel(instanceAddresses[instanceAddresses.Count - instancesToAdd], ChannelCredentials.Insecure);
var client = new ConfigurationDirectoryService.ConfigurationDirectoryServiceClient(channel);
Instances.Add(client);
instancesToAdd--;
}
}
}
Desired behaviour is that when the original list (instanceAddresses) is changed, this method can get to work and can set up a new client and add it to another list.
This is the method that would call the thread start:
public CDS_Service(ref List<string> instanceAddresses)
{
Thread manageAvaliable = new Thread(CheckAvaliability);
manageAvaliable.Start();
if(instanceAddresses.Count() > 0)
{
foreach(string instanceAddr in instanceAddresses)
{
Channel channel = new Channel(instanceAddr, ChannelCredentials.Insecure);
var client = new ConfigurationDirectoryService.ConfigurationDirectoryServiceClient(channel);
Instances.Add(client);
}
foreach(CM commandManager in Instances[0].SyncDirectory(new Empty { }).CommandManagers)
{
List<string> commands = new List<string>();
foreach(string command in commandManager.Commands)
{
commands.Add(command);
}
Directory.Add(new CommandManager(commandManager.Address, commands, commandManager.IsActive));
}
}
//Thread would be setup here
}
And where this is constructed:
Server server = new Server
{
Services = { ConfigurationDirectoryService.BindService(new CDS_Service(ref clientDiscovery.OtherInstances)) },
Ports = { new ServerPort(addr, PORT, ServerCredentials.Insecure) }
};
I'm also not sure if this is also bad practice passing a ref around through different classes like this.
Is this possible/safe to do?

Instead of using ref here, you should use an observable collection, like ObservableCollection<T>. List<string> is already pass-by-reference :)
First, change the type of clientDiscovery.OtherInstances to ObservableCollection<string>, then change the parameter type of the constructor to ObservableCollection<string> as well. Remove all the refs, you don't need those.
Now, rewrite ManageConnections to this signature (You'll need using System.Collections.Specialized):
private void ManageConnections(object sender, NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs e) {
}
Here, you will check e.NewItems to see which items have been added to the instanceAddresses list, and add each of them to another list:
foreach (var item in e.NewItems) {
Channel channel = new Channel(item, ChannelCredentials.Insecure);
var client = new ConfigurationDirectoryService.ConfigurationDirectoryServiceClient(channel);
Instances.Add(client);
}
You might want to do something if the there are removed items as well. If you want to handle that, use e.OldItems. Those are the removed items.
Now, instead of calling ManageConnections, you do:
instancesToAdd.CollectionChanged += ManageConnections;
Note that this won't handle the initial items in the list (only subsequent changes will be added), so you might want to handle the initial items straight after the line above.

You do not need the ref keyword. List<T> is a class which is a reference type, so it's already passed by reference.
Well, to be precise you're passing the reference around, and THAT is passed by value. You would only need the ref keyword if you assigned the reference to a new / different list and wanted that passed back to the caller.
If you do not intend to alter the list, then you're probably better passing IEnumerable<T> instead, since that is read only .List<T> already implements IEnumerable<T>, so you don't even need to cast.
If you're accessing the list from different threads, then be aware it could change AT ANY TIME (like half way through iterating it). In this case you may want a ConcurrentList<T> which is at least thread safe for add/removes. Alternatively if you're only reading, you may be better to create a readonly "snapshot" of the list at a certain point by calling ToArray() on it or something and passing that around instead.

checking list of monsters error Unity [duplicate]

I can't get to the bottom of this error, because when the debugger is attached, it does not seem to occur.
Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute
Below is the code.
This is a WCF server in a Windows service. The method NotifySubscribers() is called by the service whenever there is a data event (at random intervals, but not very often - about 800 times per day).
When a Windows Forms client subscribes, the subscriber ID is added to the subscribers dictionary, and when the client unsubscribes, it is deleted from the dictionary. The error happens when (or after) a client unsubscribes. It appears that the next time the NotifySubscribers() method is called, the foreach() loop fails with the error in the subject line. The method writes the error into the application log as shown in the code below. When a debugger is attached and a client unsubscribes, the code executes fine.
Do you see a problem with this code? Do I need to make the dictionary thread-safe?
[ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode=InstanceContextMode.Single)]
public class SubscriptionServer : ISubscriptionServer
{
private static IDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> subscribers;
public SubscriptionServer()
{
subscribers = new Dictionary<Guid, Subscriber>();
}
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values)
{
try
{
s.Callback.SignalData(sr);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
DCS.WriteToApplicationLog(e.Message,
System.Diagnostics.EventLogEntryType.Error);
UnsubscribeEvent(s.ClientId);
}
}
}
public Guid SubscribeEvent(string clientDescription)
{
Subscriber subscriber = new Subscriber();
subscriber.Callback = OperationContext.Current.
GetCallbackChannel<IDCSCallback>();
subscribers.Add(subscriber.ClientId, subscriber);
return subscriber.ClientId;
}
public void UnsubscribeEvent(Guid clientId)
{
try
{
subscribers.Remove(clientId);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Unsubscribe Error " +
e.Message);
}
}
}

What's likely happening is that SignalData is indirectly changing the subscribers dictionary under the hood during the loop and leading to that message. You can verify this by changing
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values)
To
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values.ToList())
If I'm right, the problem will disappear.
Calling subscribers.Values.ToList() copies the values of subscribers.Values to a separate list at the start of the foreach. Nothing else has access to this list (it doesn't even have a variable name!), so nothing can modify it inside the loop.

When a subscriber unsubscribes you are changing contents of the collection of Subscribers during enumeration.
There are several ways to fix this, one being changing the for loop to use an explicit .ToList():
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
foreach(Subscriber s in subscribers.Values.ToList())
{
^^^^^^^^^
...

A more efficient way, in my opinion, is to have another list that you declare that you put anything that is "to be removed" into. Then after you finish your main loop (without the .ToList()), you do another loop over the "to be removed" list, removing each entry as it happens. So in your class you add:
private List<Guid> toBeRemoved = new List<Guid>();
Then you change it to:
public void NotifySubscribers(DataRecord sr)
{
toBeRemoved.Clear();
...your unchanged code skipped...
foreach ( Guid clientId in toBeRemoved )
{
try
{
subscribers.Remove(clientId);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Unsubscribe Error " +
e.Message);
}
}
}
...your unchanged code skipped...
public void UnsubscribeEvent(Guid clientId)
{
toBeRemoved.Add( clientId );
}
This will not only solve your problem, it will prevent you from having to keep creating a list from your dictionary, which is expensive if there are a lot of subscribers in there. Assuming the list of subscribers to be removed on any given iteration is lower than the total number in the list, this should be faster. But of course feel free to profile it to be sure that's the case if there's any doubt in your specific usage situation.

Why this error?
In general .Net collections do not support being enumerated and modified at the same time. If you try to modify the collection list during enumeration, it raises an exception. So the issue behind this error is, we can not modify the list/dictionary while we are looping through the same.
One of the solutions
If we iterate a dictionary using a list of its keys, in parallel we can modify the dictionary object, as we are iterating through the key-collection and
not the dictionary(and iterating its key collection).
Example
//get key collection from dictionary into a list to loop through
List<int> keys = new List<int>(Dictionary.Keys);
// iterating key collection using a simple for-each loop
foreach (int key in keys)
{
// Now we can perform any modification with values of the dictionary.
Dictionary[key] = Dictionary[key] - 1;
}
Here is a blog post about this solution.
And for a deep dive in StackOverflow: Why this error occurs?

Okay so what helped me was iterating backwards. I was trying to remove an entry from a list but iterating upwards and it screwed up the loop because the entry didn't exist anymore:
for (int x = myList.Count - 1; x > -1; x--)
{
myList.RemoveAt(x);
}

The accepted answer is imprecise and incorrect in the worst case . If changes are made during ToList(), you can still end up with an error. Besides lock, which performance and thread-safety needs to be taken into consideration if you have a public member, a proper solution can be using immutable types.
In general, an immutable type means that you can't change the state of it once created.
So your code should look like:
public class SubscriptionServer : ISubscriptionServer
{
private static ImmutableDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> subscribers = ImmutableDictionary<Guid, Subscriber>.Empty;
public void SubscribeEvent(string id)
{
subscribers = subscribers.Add(Guid.NewGuid(), new Subscriber());
}
public void NotifyEvent()
{
foreach(var sub in subscribers.Values)
{
//.....This is always safe
}
}
//.........
}
This can be especially useful if you have a public member. Other classes can always foreach on the immutable types without worrying about the collection being modified.

I want to point out other case not reflected in any of the answers. I have a Dictionary<Tkey,TValue> shared in a multi threaded app, which uses a ReaderWriterLockSlim to protect the read and write operations. This is a reading method that throws the exception:
public IEnumerable<Data> GetInfo()
{
List<Data> info = null;
_cacheLock.EnterReadLock();
try
{
info = _cache.Values.SelectMany(ce => ce.Data); // Ad .Tolist() to avoid exc.
}
finally
{
_cacheLock.ExitReadLock();
}
return info;
}
In general, it works fine, but from time to time I get the exception. The problem is a subtlety of LINQ: this code returns an IEnumerable<Info>, which is still not enumerated after leaving the section protected by the lock. So, it can be changed by other threads before being enumerated, leading to the exception. The solution is to force the enumeration, for example with .ToList() as shown in the comment. In this way, the enumerable is already enumerated before leaving the protected section.
So, if using LINQ in a multi-threaded application, be aware to always materialize the queries before leaving the protected regions.

InvalidOperationException-
An InvalidOperationException has occurred. It reports a "collection was modified" in a foreach-loop
Use break statement, Once the object is removed.
ex:
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
foreach (var item in list)
{
if(condition)
{
list.remove(item);
break;
}
}

Actually the problem seems to me that you are removing elements from the list and expecting to continue to read the list as if nothing had happened.
What you really need to do is to start from the end and back to the begining. Even if you remove elements from the list you will be able to continue reading it.

I had the same issue, and it was solved when I used a for loop instead of foreach.
// foreach (var item in itemsToBeLast)
for (int i = 0; i < itemsToBeLast.Count; i++)
{
var matchingItem = itemsToBeLast.FirstOrDefault(item => item.Detach);
if (matchingItem != null)
{
itemsToBeLast.Remove(matchingItem);
continue;
}
allItems.Add(itemsToBeLast[i]);// (attachDetachItem);
}

I've seen many options for this but to me this one was the best.
ListItemCollection collection = new ListItemCollection();
foreach (ListItem item in ListBox1.Items)
{
if (item.Selected)
collection.Add(item);
}
Then simply loop through the collection.
Be aware that a ListItemCollection can contain duplicates. By default there is nothing preventing duplicates being added to the collection. To avoid duplicates you can do this:
ListItemCollection collection = new ListItemCollection();
foreach (ListItem item in ListBox1.Items)
{
if (item.Selected && !collection.Contains(item))
collection.Add(item);
}

This way should cover a situation of concurrency when the function is called again while is still executing (and items need used only once):
while (list.Count > 0)
{
string Item = list[0];
list.RemoveAt(0);
// do here what you need to do with item
}
If the function get called while is still executing items will not reiterate from the first again as they get deleted as soon as they get used.
Should not affect performance much for small lists.

Here is a specific scenario that warrants a specialized approach:
The Dictionary is enumerated frequently.
The Dictionary is modified infrequently.
In this scenario creating a copy of the Dictionary (or the Dictionary.Values) before every enumeration can be quite costly. My idea about solving this problem is to reuse the same cached copy in multiple enumerations, and watch an IEnumerator of the original Dictionary for exceptions. The enumerator will be cached along with the copied data, and interrogated before starting a new enumeration. In case of an exception the cached copy will be discarded, and a new one will be created. Here is my implementation of this idea:
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections.ObjectModel;
using System.Linq;
public class EnumerableSnapshot<T> : IEnumerable<T>, IDisposable
{
private IEnumerable<T> _source;
private IEnumerator<T> _enumerator;
private ReadOnlyCollection<T> _cached;
public EnumerableSnapshot(IEnumerable<T> source)
{
_source = source ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
if (_source == null) throw new ObjectDisposedException(this.GetType().Name);
if (_enumerator == null)
{
_enumerator = _source.GetEnumerator();
_cached = new ReadOnlyCollection<T>(_source.ToArray());
}
else
{
var modified = false;
if (_source is ICollection collection) // C# 7 syntax
{
modified = _cached.Count != collection.Count;
}
if (!modified)
{
try
{
_enumerator.MoveNext();
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
modified = true;
}
}
if (modified)
{
_enumerator.Dispose();
_enumerator = _source.GetEnumerator();
_cached = new ReadOnlyCollection<T>(_source.ToArray());
}
}
return _cached.GetEnumerator();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_enumerator?.Dispose();
_enumerator = null;
_cached = null;
_source = null;
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => GetEnumerator();
}
public static class EnumerableSnapshotExtensions
{
public static EnumerableSnapshot<T> ToEnumerableSnapshot<T>(
this IEnumerable<T> source) => new EnumerableSnapshot<T>(source);
}
Usage example:
private static IDictionary<Guid, Subscriber> _subscribers;
private static EnumerableSnapshot<Subscriber> _subscribersSnapshot;
//...(in the constructor)
_subscribers = new Dictionary<Guid, Subscriber>();
_subscribersSnapshot = _subscribers.Values.ToEnumerableSnapshot();
// ...(elsewere)
foreach (var subscriber in _subscribersSnapshot)
{
//...
}
Unfortunately this idea cannot be used currently with the class Dictionary in .NET Core 3.0, because this class does not throw a Collection was modified exception when enumerated and the methods Remove and Clear are invoked. All other containers I checked are behaving consistently. I checked systematically these classes:
List<T>, Collection<T>, ObservableCollection<T>, HashSet<T>, SortedSet<T>, Dictionary<T,V> and SortedDictionary<T,V>. Only the two aforementioned methods of the Dictionary class in .NET Core are not invalidating the enumeration.
Update: I fixed the above problem by comparing also the lengths of the cached and the original collection. This fix assumes that the dictionary will be passed directly as an argument to the EnumerableSnapshot's constructor, and its identity will not be hidden by (for example) a projection like: dictionary.Select(e => e).ΤοEnumerableSnapshot().
Important: The above class is not thread safe. It is intended to be used from code running exclusively in a single thread.

You can copy subscribers dictionary object to a same type of temporary dictionary object and then iterate the temporary dictionary object using foreach loop.

So a different way to solve this problem would be instead of removing the elements create a new dictionary and only add the elements you didnt want to remove then replace the original dictionary with the new one. I don't think this is too much of an efficiency problem because it does not increase the number of times you iterate over the structure.

Multithreading, lambdas and local variables

My question is, in the below code, can I be sure that the instance methods will be accessing the variables I think they will, or can they be changed by another thread while I'm still working? Do closures have anything to do with this, i.e. will I be working on a local copy of the IEnumerable<T> so enumeration is safe?
To paraphrase my question, do I need any locks if I'm never writing to shared variables?
public class CustomerClass
{
private Config cfg = (Config)ConfigurationManager.GetSection("Customer");
public void Run()
{
var serviceGroups = this.cfg.ServiceDeskGroups.Select(n => n.Group).ToList();
var groupedData = DataReader.GetSourceData().AsEnumerable().GroupBy(n => n.Field<int>("ID"));
Parallel.ForEach<IGrouping<int, DataRow>, CustomerDataContext>(
groupedData,
() => new CustomerDataContext(),
(g, _, ctx) =>
{
var inter = this.FindOrCreateInteraction(ctx, g.Key);
inter.ID = g.Key;
inter.Title = g.First().Field<string>("Title");
this.CalculateSomeProperty(ref inter, serviceGroups);
return ctx;
},
ctx => ctx.SubmitAllChanges());
}
private Interaction FindOrCreateInteraction(CustomerDataContext ctx, int ID)
{
var inter = ctx.Interactions.Where(n => n.Id = ID).SingleOrDefault();
if (inter == null)
{
inter = new Interaction();
ctx.InsertOnSubmit(inter);
}
return inter;
}
private void CalculateSomeProperty(ref Interaction inter, IEnumerable<string> serviceDeskGroups)
{
// Reads from the List<T> class instance variable. Changes the state of the ref'd object.
if (serviceGroups.Contains(inter.Group))
{
inter.Ours = true;
}
}
}

I seem to have found the answer and in the process, also the question.
The real question was whether local "variables", that turn out to be actually objects, can be trusted for concurrent access. The answer is no, if they happen to have internal state that is not handled in a thread-safe manner, all bets are off. The closure doesn't help, it just captures a reference to said object.
In my specific case - concurrent reads from IEnumerable<T> and no writes to it, it is actually thread safe, because each call to foreach, Contains(), Where(), etc. gets a fresh new IEnumerator, which is only visible from the thread that requested it. Any other objects, however, must also be checked, one by one.
So, hooray, no locks or synchronized collections for me :)
Thanks to #ebb and #Dave, although you didn't answer the question directly, you pointed me in the right direction.
If you're interested in the results, this is a run on my home PC (a quad-core) with Thread.SpinWait to simulate the processing time of a row. The real app had an improvement of almost 2X (01:03 vs 00:34) on a dual-core hyper-threaded machine with SQL Server on the local network.
Single-threaded, using foreach. I don't know why, but there is a pretty high number of cross-core context switches.
Using Parallel.ForEach, lock-free with thread-locals where needed.

Right now, from what I can tell, your instance methods are not using any member variables. That makes them stateless and therefore threadsafe. However, in that same case, you'd be better off marking them "static" for code clarity and a slight performance benefit.
If those instance methods were using a member variable, then they'd only be as threadsafe as that variable (for example, if you used a simple list, it would not be threadsafe and you may see weird behavior). Long story short, member variables are the enemy of easy thread safety.
Here's my refactor (disclaimer, not tested). If you want to provide data that's passed in, you'll stay saner if you pass them as parameters and don't keep them as member variables :
UPDATE: You asked for a way to reference your read only list, so I've added that and removed the static tags (so that the instance variable can be shared).
public class CustomerClass
{
private List<string> someReadOnlyList;
public CustomerClass(){
List<string> tempList = new List<string>() { "string1", "string2" };
someReadOnlyList = ArrayList.Synchronized(tempList);
}
public void Run()
{
var groupedData = DataReader.GetSourceData().AsEnumerable().GroupBy(n => n.Field<int>("ID"));
Parallel.ForEach<IGrouping<int, DataRow>, CustomerDataContext>(
groupedData,
() => new CustomerDataContext(),
(g, _, ctx) =>
{
var inter = FindOrCreateInteraction(ctx, g.Key);
inter.ID = g.Key;
inter.Title = g.First().Field<string>("Title");
CalculateSomeProperty(ref inter);
return ctx;
},
ctx => ctx.SubmitAllChanges());
}
private Interaction FindOrCreateInteraction(CustomerDataContext ctx, int ID)
{
var query = ctx.Interactions.Where(n => n.Id = ID);
if (query.Any())
{
return query.Single();
}
else
{
var inter = new Interaction();
ctx.InsertOnSubmit(inter);
return inter;
}
}
private void CalculateSomeProperty(ref Interaction inter)
{
Console.Writeline(someReadOnlyList[0]);
//do some other stuff
}
}

We Keep Coding

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.