We Keep Coding

Receiving data from a serial port using ReadAsync

I'm trying to communicate with a piece of hardware over a serial port and I've noticed that it's quite tricky. After reading up on some of the SerialPort caveats, I discovered this post by Ben Voigt on alternative approaches to handle serial communication in .NET with the SerialPort class.
However, this code is quite old (8 years or so as of today) and the Stream class now exposes asynchronous read/write support, so I was wondering how the code in that blog could be re-written to account for the following scenarios:
The device periodically sends a status update through the port (auto generated)
I can send a byte array that represents a command that doesn't need a response
I can send a byte array that represents a command that does need a response, and the device will send that reply data through the port
So far, I have a simple read loop that looks a bit like this:
public async IAsyncEnumerable<byte> ReadBytesAsync()
{
while (_port.IsOpen)
{
byte[]? buffer = new byte[1];
try
{
await _port.BaseStream.ReadAsync(buffer, 0, 1);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// Do stuff
}
if (buffer is not null) yield return buffer[0];
await Task.Delay(1); // Wait a bit before reading again
}
}
I also have a GetRepliesAsync() method that await foreaches over the read bytes and constructs the right data types for the replies.
The autogenerated status update gets read correctly when received, but if I use _port.BaseStream.WriteAsync(commandBytes, 0, commandBytes.Length), the device receives the update but I somehow don't receive its reply through the base stream.
What could I be doing wrong, and how can I actually read the received bytes?
UPDATES
1. Modified read and added delay
I got the code to work somewhat with the following approach:
while (_port.IsOpen)
{
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested) yield break;
int bufferLength = 2048; // Arbitrary buffer length
byte[] buffer = new byte[bufferLength];
try
{
// Partially using Ben Voigt's approach
int bytesRead = await _port.BaseStream
.ReadAsync(buffer.AsMemory(0, bufferLength), cancellationToken);
nextBytes = new byte[bytesRead];
Buffer.BlockCopy(buffer, 0, nextBytes, 0, bytesRead);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
Console.WriteLine("Terminating serial read polling...");
yield break;
}
if (nextBytes is not null)
{
for (int i = 0; i < nextBytes.Length; i++)
{
yield return nextBytes[i];
}
}
// Introduce delay in case a write operation is going on
await Task.Delay(200, cancellationToken);
}
But I still don't see a way to guarantee that each write will happen during the 200 millisecond delay.

Server's socket blocking if no newline detected but client's socket not

While setting up a TCP server-client connection, I realized that the server receive function hangs if the client does not send an '\n', but the client does not block if the sever doesn't. I tried searching for an explanation without finding a proper answer, so I came here to ask for your help.
I am using the same function to exchange data for both server and client, but I don't know why it works for one and doesn't for the other...
Here is my function in C#:
public bool sendToClient(int i, string msg)
{
try
{
(clientSockets.ElementAt(i)).mSocket.Send(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(msg));
}
catch(Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Data.ToString());
return false;
}
return true;
}
private string getMessageFromConnection(Socket s)
{
byte[] buff;
string msg = "";
int k;
do
{
buff = new byte[100];
k = s.Receive(buff, 100, SocketFlags.None);
msg += Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buff, 0, k);
} while (k >= 100);
return msg;
}
The sockets are simple SOCK_STREAM ones, and the clientSockets is a list containing Client objects containing each client info including their socket.
I understand that one solution would be to detect a particular character to end the message, but I would like to know the reason behind it because I also had this issue using C.
Thanks in advance.

Your while loop continues only as long as you're reading exactly 100 bytes, and it seems that you intend to use that to detect the end of a message.
This will fail if the message is exactly 100 or any multitude of 100 bytes (in which case it will append a subsequent message to it).
But even worse - there is no guarantee that the socket will return 100 bytes, even if there is data still on its way. Receive does not wait until the underlying buffer has reached 100 bytes, it will return whatever it has available at that point.
You're going to have to either include a header that indicates the message length, or have a terminator character that indicates the end of the message.

Read unknown length by DataReader

I've been working with windows app store programming in c# recently, and I've come across a problem with sockets.
I need to be able to read data with an unknown length from a DataReader().
It sounds simple enough, but I've not been able to find a solution after a few days of searching.
Here's my current receiving code (A little sloppy, need to clean it up after I find a solution to this problem. And yes, a bit of this is from the Microsoft example)
DataReader reader = new DataReader(args.Socket.InputStream);
try
{
while (true)
{
// Read first 4 bytes (length of the subsequent string).
uint sizeFieldCount = await reader.LoadAsync(sizeof(uint));
if (sizeFieldCount != sizeof(uint))
{
// The underlying socket was closed before we were able to read the whole data.
return;
}
reader.InputStreamOptions
// Read the string.
uint stringLength = reader.ReadUInt32();
uint actualStringLength = await reader.LoadAsync(stringLength);
if (stringLength != actualStringLength)
{
// The underlying socket was closed before we were able to read the whole data.
return;
}
// Display the string on the screen. The event is invoked on a non-UI thread, so we need to marshal
// the text back to the UI thread.
//MessageBox.Show("Received data: " + reader.ReadString(actualStringLength));
MessageBox.updateList(reader.ReadString(actualStringLength));
}
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
// If this is an unknown status it means that the error is fatal and retry will likely fail.
if (SocketError.GetStatus(exception.HResult) == SocketErrorStatus.Unknown)
{
throw;
}
MessageBox.Show("Read stream failed with error: " + exception.Message);
}

You are going down the right lines - read the first INT to find out how many bytes are to be sent.
Franky Boyle is correct - without a signalling mechanism it is impossible to ever know the length of a stream. Thats why it is called a stream!
NO socket implementation (including the WinSock) will ever be clever enough to know when a client has finished sending data. The client could be having a cup of tea half way through sending the data!
Your server and its sockets will never know! What are they going to do? Wait forever? I suppose they could wait until the client had 'closed' the connection? But your client could have had a blue screen and the server will never get that TCP close packet, it will just be sitting there thinking it is getting more data one day?
I have never used a DataReader - i have never even heard of that class! Use NetworkStream instead.
From my memory I have written code like this in the past. I am just typing, no checking of syntax.
using(MemoryStream recievedData = new MemoryStream())
{
using(NetworkStream networkStream = new NetworkStream(connectedSocket))
{
int totalBytesToRead = networkStream.ReadByte();
// This is your mechanism to find out how many bytes
// the client wants to send.
byte[] readBuffer = new byte[1024]; // Up to you the length!
int totalBytesRead = 0;
int bytesReadInThisTcpWindow = 0;
// The length of the TCP window of the client is usually
// the number of bytes that will be pushed through
// to your server in one SOCKET.READ method call.
// For example, if the clients TCP window was 777 bytes, a:
// int bytesRead =
// networkStream.Read(readBuffer, 0, int.Max);
// bytesRead would be 777.
// If they were sending a large file, you would have to make
// it up from the many 777s.
// If it were a small file under 777 bytes, your bytesRead
// would be the total small length of say 500.
while
(
(
bytesReadInThisTcpWindow =
networkStream.Read(readBuffer, 0, readBuffer.Length)
) > 0
)
// If the bytesReadInThisTcpWindow = 0 then the client
// has disconnected or failed to send the promised number
// of bytes in your Windows server internals dictated timeout
// (important to kill it here to stop lots of waiting
// threads killing your server)
{
recievedData.Write(readBuffer, 0, bytesReadInThisTcpWindow);
totalBytesToRead = totalBytesToRead + bytesReadInThisTcpWindow;
}
if(totalBytesToRead == totalBytesToRead)
{
// We have our data!
}
}
}

Understanding the NetworkStream.EndRead()-example from MSDN

I tried to understand the MSDN example for NetworkStream.EndRead(). There are some parts that i do not understand.
So here is the example (copied from MSDN):
// Example of EndRead, DataAvailable and BeginRead.
public static void myReadCallBack(IAsyncResult ar ){
NetworkStream myNetworkStream = (NetworkStream)ar.AsyncState;
byte[] myReadBuffer = new byte[1024];
String myCompleteMessage = "";
int numberOfBytesRead;
numberOfBytesRead = myNetworkStream.EndRead(ar);
myCompleteMessage =
String.Concat(myCompleteMessage, Encoding.ASCII.GetString(myReadBuffer, 0, numberOfBytesRead));
// message received may be larger than buffer size so loop through until you have it all.
while(myNetworkStream.DataAvailable){
myNetworkStream.BeginRead(myReadBuffer, 0, myReadBuffer.Length,
new AsyncCallback(NetworkStream_ASync_Send_Receive.myReadCallBack),
myNetworkStream);
}
// Print out the received message to the console.
Console.WriteLine("You received the following message : " +
myCompleteMessage);
}
It uses BeginRead() and EndRead() to read asynchronously from the network stream.
The whole thing is invoked by calling
myNetworkStream.BeginRead(someBuffer, 0, someBuffer.Length, new AsyncCallback(NetworkStream_ASync_Send_Receive.myReadCallBack), myNetworkStream);
somewhere else (not displayed in the example).
What I think it should do is print the whole message received from the NetworkStream in a single WriteLine (the one at the end of the example). Notice that the string is called myCompleteMessage.
Now when I look at the implementation some problems arise for my understanding.
First of all: The example allocates a new method-local buffer myReadBuffer. Then EndStream() is called which writes the received message into the buffer that BeginRead() was supplied. This is NOT the myReadBuffer that was just allocated. How should the network stream know of it? So in the next line numberOfBytesRead-bytes from the empty buffer are appended to myCompleteMessage. Which has the current value "". In the last line this message consisting of a lot of '\0's is printed with Console.WriteLine.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
The second thing I do not understand is the while-loop.
BeginRead is an asynchronous call. So no data is immediately read. So as I understand it, the while loop should run quite a while until some asynchronous call is actually executed and reads from the stream so that there is no data available any more. The documentation doesn't say that BeginRead immediately marks some part of the available data as being read, so I do not expect it to do so.
This example does not improve my understanding of those methods. Is this example wrong or is my understanding wrong (I expect the latter)? How does this example work?

I think the while loop around the BeginRead shouldn't be there. You don't want to execute the BeginRead more than ones before the EndRead is done. Also the buffer needs to be specified outside the BeginRead, because you may use more than one reads per packet/buffer.
There are some things you need to think about, like how long are my messages/blocks (fixed size). Shall I prefix it with a length. (variable size) <datalength><data><datalength><data>
Don't forget it is a Streaming connection, so multiple/partial messages/packets can be read in one read.
Pseudo example:
int bytesNeeded;
int bytesRead;
public void Start()
{
bytesNeeded = 40; // u need to know how much bytes you're needing
bytesRead = 0;
BeginReading();
}
public void BeginReading()
{
myNetworkStream.BeginRead(
someBuffer, bytesRead, bytesNeeded - bytesRead,
new AsyncCallback(EndReading),
myNetworkStream);
}
public void EndReading(IAsyncResult ar)
{
numberOfBytesRead = myNetworkStream.EndRead(ar);
if(numberOfBytesRead == 0)
{
// disconnected
return;
}
bytesRead += numberOfBytesRead;
if(bytesRead == bytesNeeded)
{
// Handle buffer
Start();
}
else
BeginReading();
}

Are there well-known patterns for asynchronous network code in C#?

I recently wrote a quick-and-dirty proof-of-concept proxy server in C# as part of an effort to get a Java web application to communicate with a legacy VB6 application residing on another server. It's ridiculously simple:
The proxy server and clients both use the same message format; in the code I use a ProxyMessage class to represent both requests from clients and responses generated by the server:
public class ProxyMessage
{
int Length; // message length (not including the length bytes themselves)
string Body; // an XML string containing a request/response
// writes this message instance in the proper network format to stream
// (helper for response messages)
WriteToStream(Stream stream) { ... }
}
The messages are as simple as could be: the length of the body + the message body.
I have a separate ProxyClient class that represents a connection to a client. It handles all the interaction between the proxy and a single client.
What I'm wondering is are they are design patterns or best practices for simplifying the boilerplate code associated with asynchronous socket programming? For example, you need to take some care to manage the read buffer so that you don't accidentally lose bytes, and you need to keep track of how far along you are in the processing of the current message. In my current code, I do all of this work in my callback function for TcpClient.BeginRead, and manage the state of the buffer and the current message processing state with the help of a few instance variables.
The code for my callback function that I'm passing to BeginRead is below, along with the relevant instance variables for context. The code seems to work fine "as-is", but I'm wondering if it can be refactored a bit to make it clearer (or maybe it already is?).
private enum BufferStates
{
GetMessageLength,
GetMessageBody
}
// The read buffer. Initially 4 bytes because we are initially
// waiting to receive the message length (a 32-bit int) from the client
// on first connecting. By constraining the buffer length to exactly 4 bytes,
// we make the buffer management a bit simpler, because
// we don't have to worry about cases where the buffer might contain
// the message length plus a few bytes of the message body.
// Additional bytes will simply be buffered by the OS until we request them.
byte[] _buffer = new byte[4];
// A count of how many bytes read so far in a particular BufferState.
int _totalBytesRead = 0;
// The state of the our buffer processing. Initially, we want
// to read in the message length, as it's the first thing
// a client will send
BufferStates _bufferState = BufferStates.GetMessageLength;
// ...ADDITIONAL CODE OMITTED FOR BREVITY...
// This is called every time we receive data from
// the client.
private void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
try
{
int bytesRead = _tcpClient.GetStream().EndRead(ar);
if (bytesRead == 0)
{
// No more data/socket was closed.
this.Dispose();
return;
}
// The state passed to BeginRead is used to hold a ProxyMessage
// instance that we use to build to up the message
// as it arrives.
ProxyMessage message = (ProxyMessage)ar.AsyncState;
if(message == null)
message = new ProxyMessage();
switch (_bufferState)
{
case BufferStates.GetMessageLength:
_totalBytesRead += bytesRead;
// if we have the message length (a 32-bit int)
// read it in from the buffer, grow the buffer
// to fit the incoming message, and change
// state so that the next read will start appending
// bytes to the message body
if (_totalBytesRead == 4)
{
int length = BitConverter.ToInt32(_buffer, 0);
message.Length = length;
_totalBytesRead = 0;
_buffer = new byte[message.Length];
_bufferState = BufferStates.GetMessageBody;
}
break;
case BufferStates.GetMessageBody:
string bodySegment = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(_buffer, _totalBytesRead, bytesRead);
_totalBytesRead += bytesRead;
message.Body += bodySegment;
if (_totalBytesRead >= message.Length)
{
// Got a complete message.
// Notify anyone interested.
// Pass a response ProxyMessage object to
// with the event so that receivers of OnReceiveMessage
// can send a response back to the client after processing
// the request.
ProxyMessage response = new ProxyMessage();
OnReceiveMessage(this, new ProxyMessageEventArgs(message, response));
// Send the response to the client
response.WriteToStream(_tcpClient.GetStream());
// Re-initialize our state so that we're
// ready to receive additional requests...
message = new ProxyMessage();
_totalBytesRead = 0;
_buffer = new byte[4]; //message length is 32-bit int (4 bytes)
_bufferState = BufferStates.GetMessageLength;
}
break;
}
// Wait for more data...
_tcpClient.GetStream().BeginRead(_buffer, 0, _buffer.Length, this.ReadCallback, message);
}
catch
{
// do nothing
}
}
So far, my only real thought is to extract the buffer-related stuff into a separate MessageBuffer class and simply have my read callback append new bytes to it as they arrive. The MessageBuffer would then worry about things like the current BufferState and fire an event when it received a complete message, which the ProxyClient could then propagate further up to the main proxy server code, where the request can be processed.

I've had to overcome similar problems. Here's my solution (modified to fit your own example).
We create a wrapper around Stream (a superclass of NetworkStream, which is a superclass of TcpClient or whatever). It monitors reads. When some data is read, it is buffered. When we receive a length indicator (4 bytes) we check if we have a full message (4 bytes + message body length). When we do, we raise a MessageReceived event with the message body, and remove the message from the buffer. This technique automatically handles fragmented messages and multiple-messages-per-packet situations.
public class MessageStream : IMessageStream, IDisposable
{
public MessageStream(Stream stream)
{
if(stream == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("stream", "Stream must not be null");
if(!stream.CanWrite || !stream.CanRead)
throw new ArgumentException("Stream must be readable and writable", "stream");
this.Stream = stream;
this.readBuffer = new byte[512];
messageBuffer = new List<byte>();
stream.BeginRead(readBuffer, 0, readBuffer.Length, new AsyncCallback(ReadCallback), null);
}
// These belong to the ReadCallback thread only.
private byte[] readBuffer;
private List<byte> messageBuffer;
private void ReadCallback(IAsyncResult result)
{
int bytesRead = Stream.EndRead(result);
messageBuffer.AddRange(readBuffer.Take(bytesRead));
if(messageBuffer.Count >= 4)
{
int length = BitConverter.ToInt32(messageBuffer.Take(4).ToArray(), 0); // 4 bytes per int32
// Keep buffering until we get a full message.
if(messageBuffer.Count >= length + 4)
{
messageBuffer.Skip(4);
OnMessageReceived(new MessageEventArgs(messageBuffer.Take(length)));
messageBuffer.Skip(length);
}
}
// FIXME below is kinda hacky (I don't know the proper way of doing things...)
// Don't bother reading again. We don't have stream access.
if(disposed)
return;
try
{
Stream.BeginRead(readBuffer, 0, readBuffer.Length, new AsyncCallback(ReadCallback), null);
}
catch(ObjectDisposedException)
{
// DO NOTHING
// Ends read loop.
}
}
public Stream Stream
{
get;
private set;
}
public event EventHandler<MessageEventArgs> MessageReceived;
protected virtual void OnMessageReceived(MessageEventArgs e)
{
var messageReceived = MessageReceived;
if(messageReceived != null)
messageReceived(this, e);
}
public virtual void SendMessage(Message message)
{
// Have fun ...
}
// Dispose stuff here
}

I think the design you've used is fine that's roughly how I would and have done the same sort of thing. I don't think you'd gain much by refactoring into additional classes/structs and from what I've seen you'd actually make the solution more complex by doing so.
The only comment I'd have is as to whether the two reads where the first is always the messgae length and the second always being the body is robust enough. I'm always wary of approaches like that as if they somehow get out of sync due to an unforseen circumstance (such as the other end sending the wrong length) it's very difficult to recover. Instead I'd do a single read with a big buffer so that I always get all the available data from the network and then inspect the buffer to extract out complete messages. That way if things do go wrong the current buffer can just be thrown away to get things back to a clean state and only the current messages are lost rather than stopping the whole service.
Actually at the moment you would have a problem if you message body was big and arrived in two seperate receives and the next message in line sent it's length at the same time as the second half of the previous body. If that happened your message length would end up appended to the body of the previous message and you'd been in the situation as desecribed in the previous paragraph.

You can use yield return to automate the generation of a state machine for asynchronous callbacks. Jeffrey Richter promotes this technique through his AsyncEnumerator class, and I've played around with the idea here.

There's nothing wrong with the way you've done it. For me, though, I like to separate the receiving of the data from the processing of it, which is what you seem to be thinking with your proposed MessageBuffer class. I have discussed that in detail here.