I'm using MVC 4 and I have the following code :
public void DoWork(string connectionId)
{
connectionId = this.connectionId;
var a = MakeADelayAsync();
}
public async Task MakeADelayAsync()
{
await Task.Delay(5000);
var generalHubContext = GlobalHost.ConnectionManager.GetHubContext<GeneralHub>();
generalHubContext.Clients.Client(connectionId).showNotification("Completed");
}
"DoWork" method is my mvc action. what I intent to do is when the action button is pressed the "DoWork" calls an async method and returns to the client immediately. when the async method has completed his job it will notify client using signalR.
The problem is in the "MakeADelayAsync" method, those two lines after await won't be called ever. It seems that the flow never continues after await.
First question is Where is the problem in "MakeADelayAsync" ?
Second question is why do I have to write a useless code of var a = MakeADelayAsync(); to avoid compiler warning while I'm completely aware of what I am doing? I never use "a" anyway.
"DoWork" method is my mvc action. what I intent to do is when the action button is pressed the "DoWork" calls an async method and returns to the client immediately. when the async method has completed his job it will notify client using signalR.
Doing this is extremely dangerous. I strongly recommend that you use a persistent queue, as I said in my previous answer: Azure queue, MSMQ, WebSphere MQ, etc.
However, if you insist on doing it the dangerous way, then you can use the code that I have on my blog to execute background work on ASP.NET outside of a request context:
public void DoWork(string connectionId)
{
connectionId = this.connectionId;
// This is extremely dangerous code! If ASP.NET unloads
// your app, then MakeADelayAsync may not run to completion.
BackgroundTaskManager.Run(() => MakeADelayAsync());
}
First question is Where is the problem in "MakeADelayAsync" ?
You're executing code that is attempting to resume on the request context after the request is completed and the request context is disposed. It's the same problem you had before.
Second question is why do I have to write a useless code of var a = MakeADelayAsync(); to avoid compiler warning while I'm completely aware of what I am doing?
The compiler warning is telling you that the code is almost certainly a mistake... and the compiler is right.
can you try to mark your DoWork method as async?
public async void DoWork(string connectionId)
{
connectionId = this.connectionId;
var a = MakeADelayAsync();
}
Related
I have the following netcore 2.2 controller method that I am trying to write an xUnit integration test for:
private readonly ISoapSvc _soapSvc;
private readonly IRepositorySvc _repositorySvc;
public SnowConnectorController(ISoapSvc soapSvc, IRepositorySvc repositorySvc)
{
_soapSvc = soapSvc;
_repositorySvc = repositorySvc;
}
[Route("accept")]
[HttpPost]
[Produces("text/xml")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Accept([FromBody] XDocument soapRequest)
{
try
{
var response = new CreateRes
{
Body = new Body
{
Response = new Response
{
Status = "Accepted"
}
}
};
return Ok(response);
}
finally
{
// After the first API call completes
Response.OnCompleted(async () =>
{
// Run the close method
await Close(soapRequest);
});
}
}
The catch block runs and does the things it needs to, then the finally block runs and does things it needs to do after the request in the catch finishes per design.
Close has been both a private method . It started as a public controller method but I don't need to expose it for function so moved it to private method status.
Here's an integration test I started with the intention of just testing the try portion of the code:
[Fact]
public async Task AlwaysReturnAcceptedResponse()
{
// Arrange------
// Build mocks so that we can inject them in our system under tests constructor
var mockSoapSvc = new Mock<ISoapSvc>();
var mockRepositorySvc = new Mock<IRepositorySvc>();
// Build system under test(sut)
var sut = new SnowConnectorController(mockSoapSvc.Object, mockRepositorySvc.Object);
var mockRequest = XDocument.Load("..\\..\\..\\mockRequest.xml");
// Act------
// Form and send test request to test system
var actualResult = await sut.Accept(mockRequest);
var actualValue = actualResult.GetType().GetProperty("Value").GetValue(actualResult);
// Assert------
// The returned object from the method call should be of type CreateRes
Assert.IsType<CreateRes>(actualValue);
}
I am super new to testing... I've been writing the test and feeling my way through the problem. I started by entering the controller method not really knowing where it would go. The test works through the try method, and then an exception is thrown once it hits the delegate in the finally block.
It looks like my test will have to run through to the results of the finally block unless there is a way to tell it to stop with the catch blocks execution?
That's fine, i'm learning, but the problem with that approach for me now is that the HttpResponse's Response.OnCompleted delegate in the finally block returns null when my test is running and I haven't been successful at figuring out what I can do to not make it null - because it is null, it throws this when my unit test is executing -
System.NullReferenceException: 'Object reference not set to an instance of an object.'
*One thought that occurred was that if I was to make the private Close method a public controller method, and then make the Accept method not have the finally block, I could create a third controller method that does the try finally action by running the two controller methods and then just test the individual controller methods that are strung together with the third. However, it doesn't feel right because I would be exposing methods just for the sake of unit testing and I don't need Close to be exposed.
If the above idea is not the right approach, I am wondering what is, and if I just need to test through end to end, how I would get over the null httpresponse?
Any ideas would be appreciated. Thank you, SO community!
EDIT - Updated Test that works after the accepted answer was implemented. Thanks!
[Fact]
public async Task AlwaysReturnAcceptedResponse()
{
// Arrange------
// Build mocks so that we can inject them in our system under tests constructor
var mockSoapSvc = new Mock<ISoapSvc>();
var mockRepositorySvc = new Mock<IRepositorySvc>();
// Build system under test(sut)
var sut = new SnowConnectorController(mockSoapSvc.Object, mockRepositorySvc.Object)
{
// Supply mocked ControllerContext and HttpContext so that finally block doesnt fail test
ControllerContext = new ControllerContext
{
HttpContext = new DefaultHttpContext()
}
};
var mockRequest = XDocument.Load("..\\..\\..\\mockRequest.xml");
// Act------
// Form and send test request to test system
var actualResult = await sut.Accept(mockRequest);
var actualValue = actualResult.GetType().GetProperty("Value").GetValue(actualResult);
// Assert------
// The returned object from the method call should be of type CreateRes
Assert.IsType<CreateRes>(actualValue);
}
Curious what you are doing in the Close method against the input parameter.
Does it have to happen after response is being sent? It might not always happen as you would expect, see here.
Regardless though, during runtime asp.net core runtime sets a lot of properties on the controller including ControllerContext, HttpContext, Request, Response etc.
But those won't be available in unit testing since there is no asp.net core runtime there.
If you really want to test this, you'll have to mock them.
Here is the ControllerBase source code.
As we can see, ControllerBase.Response simply returns ControllerBase.HttpContext.Response, and ControllerBase.HttpContext is a getter from ControllerBase.ControllerContext. This means you'll have to mock a ControllerContext (and the nested HttpContext as well as HttpResponse) and assign it to your controller in the setup phase.
Furthermore, the OnCompleted callback won't get called in unit test either. If you want to unit test that part, you'll have to trigger it manually.
Personally I think it's too much hassle beside the open bug I mentioned above.
I would suggest you move the closing logic (if it's really necessary) to a IDisposable scoped service and handle that in the Dispose instead - assuming it's not a computation heavy operation which can impact the response latency.
I am using FluentValidation to validate the objects. I am simply checking checking whether the user exists in database or not. In my case, DbContext.Entity.Find works just fine but DbContext.Entity.FindAsync never returns.
Please refer to the below source code where it is happening.
public class ChangeStatusOfUserCommandValidator : AbstractValidator<ChangeStatusOfUserCommand>
{
private readonly FieldSellDbContext dbContext;
private ChangeStatusOfUserCommandValidator()
{ }
public ChangeStatusOfUserCommandValidator(FieldSellDbContext databaseContext)
{
dbContext = databaseContext;
RuleFor(u => u.UserId).NotEmpty();
RuleFor(u => u.UserId).MustAsync(UserExists).WithMessage("Provided user id already exists in the database.");
}
public async Task<bool> UserExists(int value, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var user = await dbContext.Users.FindAsync(value, cancellationToken);
//var user = dbContext.Users.Find(value); --Works fine even in async method
return user != null;
}
}
Thanks
Your problem is almost certainly further up your call stack, where the code is calling Task<T>.Result, Task.Wait(), Task.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), or some similar blocking method. If your code blocks on asynchronous code in a single-threaded context (e.g., on a UI thread), it can deadlock.
The proper solution is to use async all the way; that is, use await instead of blocking on asynchronous code. Fluent validation has an asynchronous workflow (e.g., ValidateAsync, MustAsync), so you'll need to be sure to use that rather than the synchronous APIs.
I would like to to use the Response.OnStarting to execute some code which leverages the async await pattern. The Response.OnStarting method is defined as
public void OnStarting(Func<Task> callback)
And I often see it used to modify headers via code like the following:
context.Response.OnStarting( () => {
//modify the headers or do some synchronous work
});
However I need to do some async work from the OnStarting delegate. Let's say the method performing the async work is declared as follows:
public Task DoWorkAsync() {
//write to a db or do something else async
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
Is it valid to call this method from via an OnStarting delegate using the following approach?
context.Response.OnStarting(async () => {
await DoWorkAsync();
});
In Visual Studio this compiles without warnings and it appears to work. However it seems odd to me that the Response.OnStarting method could be used to make both synchronous and async calls. Sometimes the async await world still gets me scratching my head a bit. Can you throw light on whether this approach works and why? And why it is that Response.OnStarting can be used with a sync and async anonymous method (if in fact it can)?
Update
I did some digging to see if I could find the code that gets calls the delegate passed to the OnStarting method.
What I found was that the DefaultHttpRespose object contains the OnStarting method and inside that method it basically calls the IHttpResponseFeature.OnStarting, see here:
public override void OnStarting(Func<object, Task> callback, object state)
{
if (callback == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(callback));
}
HttpResponseFeature.OnStarting(callback, state);
}
link to source code
But interestingly, the only place I can find an implementation of IHttpResponseFeature.OnStarting is here with this code:
void IHttpResponseFeature.OnStarting(Func<object, Task> callback, object state)
{
var register = Prop<Action<Action<object>, object>>(OwinConstants.CommonKeys.OnSendingHeaders);
if (register == null)
{
throw new NotSupportedException(OwinConstants.CommonKeys.OnSendingHeaders);
}
// Need to block on the callback since we can't change the OWIN signature to be async
register(s => callback(s).GetAwaiter().GetResult(), state);
}
But that implementation blocks on the async delegate call. There is even a comment to that effect but I don't understand why that was necessary? And I'm not sure this is the implementation of IHttpResponseFeature.OnStarting that is getting ran, it's just the only one I could find on github. Any help greatly appreciated.
However it seems odd to me that the Response.OnStarting method could be used to make both synchronous and async calls.
Synchronous APIs must be implemented synchronously. A Func<int> must return an int; it cannot return a Task<int> instead.
Asynchronous APIs may be implemented asynchronously or synchronously. A Func<Task<int>> may have an asynchronous implementation, returning a Task<int> that will complete in the future. Or it may have a synchronous implementation, returning a Task<int> that is already completed with an int value.
When dealing with asynchronous APIs (including interfaces and delegate signatures), synchronous implementations are entirely permissible.
I wouldn't be distracted by the blocking implementation. The comment indicates that OWIN has a synchronous API in a place where there should be an asynchronous API, and IHttpResponseFeature.OnStarting is just hiding that oddity from you.
I have a web service in WCF that consume some external web services, so what I want to do is make this service asynchronous in order to release the thread, wait for the completion of all the external services, and then return the result to the client.
With Framework 4.0
public class MyService : IMyService
{
public IAsyncResult BeginDoWork(int count, AsyncCallback callback, object serviceState)
{
var proxyOne = new Gateway.BackendOperation.BackendOperationOneSoapClient();
var proxyTwo = new Gateway.BackendOperationTwo.OperationTwoSoapClient();
var taskOne = Task<int>.Factory.FromAsync(proxyOne.BeginGetNumber, proxyOne.EndGetNumber, 10, serviceState);
var taskTwo = Task<int>.Factory.FromAsync(proxyTwo.BeginGetNumber, proxyTwo.EndGetNumber, 10, serviceState);
var tasks = new Queue<Task<int>>();
tasks.Enqueue(taskOne);
tasks.Enqueue(taskTwo);
return Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll(tasks.ToArray(), innerTasks =>
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(serviceState);
int sum = 0;
foreach (var innerTask in innerTasks)
{
if (innerTask.IsFaulted)
{
tcs.SetException(innerTask.Exception);
callback(tcs.Task);
return;
}
if (innerTask.IsCompleted)
{
sum = innerTask.Result;
}
}
tcs.SetResult(sum);
callback(tcs.Task);
});
}
public int EndDoWork(IAsyncResult result)
{
try
{
return ((Task<int>)result).Result;
}
catch (AggregateException ex)
{
throw ex.InnerException;
}
}
}
My questions here are:
This code is using three threads: one that is instanced in the
BeginDoWork, another one that is instanced when the code enter
inside the anonymous method ContinueWhenAll, and the last one when
the callback is executed, in this case EndDoWork. Is that correct or
I’m doing something wrong on the calls? Should I use any
synchronization context? Note: The synchronization context is null
on the main thread.
What happen if I “share” information between
threads, for instance, the callback function? Will that cause a
performance issue or the anonymous method is like a closure where I
can share data?
With Framework 4.5 and Async and Await
Now with Framework 4.5, the code seems too much simple than before:
public async Task<int> DoWorkAsync(int count)
{
var proxyOne = new Backend.ServiceOne.ServiceOneClient();
var proxyTwo = new Backend.ServiceTwo.ServiceTwoClient();
var doWorkOne = proxyOne.DoWorkAsync(count);
var doWorkTwo = proxyTwo.DoWorkAsync(count);
var result = await Task.WhenAll(doWorkOne, doWorkTwo);
return doWorkOne.Result + doWorkTwo.Result;
}
But in this case when I debug the application, I always see that the code is executed on the same thread. So my questions here are:
3.. When I’m waiting for the “awaitable” code, is that thread released and goes back to the thread pool to execute more requests?
3.1. If So, I suppose that when I get a result from the await Task, the execution completes on the same thread that the call before. Is that possible? What happen if that thread is processing another request?
3.2 If Not, how can I release the thread to send it back to the thread pool with Asycn and Await pattern?
Thank you!
1. This code is using three threads: one that is instanced in the BeginDoWork, another one that is instanced when the code enter inside the anonymous method ContinueWhenAll, and the last one when the callback is executed, in this case EndDoWork. Is that correct or I’m doing something wrong on the calls? Should I use any synchronization context?
It's better to think in terms of "tasks" rather than "threads". You do have three tasks here, each of which will run on the thread pool, one at a time.
2. What happen if I “share” information between threads, for instance, the callback function? Will that cause a performance issue or the anonymous method is like a closure where I can share data?
You don't have to worry about synchronization because each of these tasks can't run concurrently. BeginDoWork registers the continuation just before returning, so it's already practically done when the continuation can run. EndDoWork will probably not be called until the continuation is complete; but even if it is, it will block until the continuation is complete.
(Technically, the continuation can start running before BeginDoWork completes, but BeginDoWork just returns at that point, so it doesn't matter).
3. When I’m waiting for the “awaitable” code, is that thread released and goes back to the thread pool to execute more requests?
Yes.
3.1. If So, I suppose that when I get a result from the await Task, the execution completes on the same thread that the call before. Is that possible? What happen if that thread is processing another request?
No. Your host (in this case, ASP.NET) may continue the async methods on any thread it happens to have available.
This is perfectly safe because only one thread is executing at a time.
P.S. I recommend
var result = await Task.WhenAll(doWorkOne, doWorkTwo);
return result[0] + result[1];
instead of
var result = await Task.WhenAll(doWorkOne, doWorkTwo);
return doWorkOne.Result + doWorkTwo.Result;
because Task.Result should be avoided in async programming.
I have a question regarding the sequencing of events in the scenario where you are calling a wcf service from silverlight 3 and updating the ui on a seperate thread. Basically, I would like to know whether what I am doing is correct... Sample is as follows. This is my first post on here, so bear with me, because i am not sure how to post actual code. Sample is as follows :
//<summary>
public static void Load(string userId)
{
//Build the request.
GetUserNameRequest request =
new GetUserNameRequest { UserId = userId };
//Open the connection.
instance.serviceClient = ServiceController.UserService;
//Make the request.
instance.serviceClient.GetUserNameCompleted
+= UserService_GetUserNameCompleted;
instance.serviceClient.GetGetUserNameAsync(request);
return instance.VM;
}
/// <summary>
private static void UserService_GetUserNameCompleted(object sender, GetUserNameCompletedEventArgs e)
{
try
{
Controller.UIDispatcher.BeginInvoke(() =>
{
//Load the response.
if (e.Result != null && e.Result.Success)
{
LoadResponse(e.Result);
}
//Completed loading data.
});
}
finally
{
instance.serviceClient.GetUserNameCompleted
-= UserService_GetUserNameCompleted;
ServiceHelper.CloseService(instance.serviceClient);
}
}
So my question basically is, inside of my UI thread when I am loading the response if that throws an exception, will the "finally" block catch that ? If not, should i put another try/catch inside of the lambda where I am loading the response ?
Also, since I am executing the load on the ui thread, is it possible that the finally will execute before the UI thread is done updating ? And could as a result call the Servicehelper.CloseService() before the load has been done ?
I ask because I am having intermittent problems using this approach.
The finally block should get executed before the processing of the response inside the BeginInvoke. BeginInvoke means that the code will get executed in the next UI cycle.
Typically the best approach to this type of thing is to pull all the data you need out of the response and store it in a variable and then clean up your service code. Then make a call to BeginInvoke and update the UI using the data in the variable.