I have a scenario. (Windows Forms, C#, .NET)
There is a main form which hosts some user control.
The user control does some heavy data operation, such that if I directly call the UserControl_Load method the UI become nonresponsive for the duration for load method execution.
To overcome this I load data on different thread (trying to change existing code as little as I can)
I used a background worker thread which will be loading the data and when done will notify the application that it has done its work.
Now came a real problem. All the UI (main form and its child usercontrols) was created on the primary main thread. In the LOAD method of the usercontrol I'm fetching data based on the values of some control (like textbox) on userControl.
The pseudocode would look like this:
CODE 1
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // This gives exception
{
//Load data corresponding to "MyName".
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage.
}
}
The Exception it gave was
Cross-thread operation not valid: Control accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on.
To know more about this I did some googling and a suggestion came up like using the following code
CODE 2
UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod()
{
if (InvokeRequired) // Line #1
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(UserContrl1_LoadDataMethod));
return;
}
if (textbox1.text == "MyName") // Now it won't give an exception
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be binded to grid at some later stage
}
}
But it still seems that I've come back to square one. The Application again
becomes unresponsive. It seems to be due to the execution of line #1 if condition. The loading task is again done by the parent thread and not the third that I spawned.
I don't know whether I perceived this right or wrong.
How do I resolve this and also what is the effect of execution of Line#1 if block?
The situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that the corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
As per Prerak K's update comment (since deleted):
I guess I have not presented the question properly.
Situation is this: I want to load data into a global variable based on the value of a control. I don't want to change the value of a control from the child thread. I'm not going to do it ever from a child thread.
So only accessing the value so that corresponding data can be fetched from the database.
The solution you want then should look like:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
string name = "";
if(textbox1.InvokeRequired)
{
textbox1.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { name = textbox1.text; }));
}
if(name == "MyName")
{
// do whatever
}
}
Do your serious processing in the separate thread before you attempt to switch back to the control's thread. For example:
UserContrl1_LOadDataMethod()
{
if(textbox1.text=="MyName") //<<======Now it wont give exception**
{
//Load data correspondin to "MyName"
//Populate a globale variable List<string> which will be
//bound to grid at some later stage
if(InvokeRequired)
{
// after we've done all the processing,
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate {
// load the control with the appropriate data
}));
return;
}
}
}
Threading Model in UI
Please read the Threading Model in UI applications (old VB link is here) in order to understand basic concepts. The link navigates to page that describes the WPF threading model. However, Windows Forms utilizes the same idea.
The UI Thread
There is only one thread (UI thread), that is allowed to access System.Windows.Forms.Control and its subclasses members.
Attempt to access member of System.Windows.Forms.Control from different thread than UI thread will cause cross-thread exception.
Since there is only one thread, all UI operations are queued as work items into that thread:
If there is no work for UI thread, then there are idle gaps that can be used by a not-UI related computing.
In order to use mentioned gaps use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods:
BeginInvoke and Invoke methods
The computing overhead of method being invoked should be small as well as computing overhead of event handler methods because the UI thread is used there - the same that is responsible for handling user input. Regardless if this is System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke.
To perform computing expensive operation always use separate thread. Since .NET 2.0 BackgroundWorker is dedicated to performing computing expensive operations in Windows Forms. However in new solutions you should use the async-await pattern as described here.
Use System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke or System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke methods only to update a user interface. If you use them for heavy computations, your application will block:
Invoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.Invoke causes separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
BeginInvoke
System.Windows.Forms.Control.BeginInvoke doesn't cause the separate thread to wait till invoked method is completed:
Code solution
Read answers on question How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?.
For C# 5.0 and .NET 4.5 the recommended solution is here.
You only want to use Invoke or BeginInvoke for the bare minimum piece of work required to change the UI. Your "heavy" method should execute on another thread (e.g. via BackgroundWorker) but then using Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke just to update the UI. That way your UI thread will be free to handle UI events etc.
See my threading article for a WinForms example - although the article was written before BackgroundWorker arrived on the scene, and I'm afraid I haven't updated it in that respect. BackgroundWorker merely simplifies the callback a bit.
I know its too late now. However even today if you are having trouble accessing cross thread controls? This is the shortest answer till date :P
Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
label1.Text = "WooHoo!!!";
}));
This is how i access any form control from a thread.
I have had this problem with the FileSystemWatcher and found that the following code solved the problem:
fsw.SynchronizingObject = this
The control then uses the current form object to deal with the events, and will therefore be on the same thread.
I find the check-and-invoke code which needs to be littered within all methods related to forms to be way too verbose and unneeded. Here's a simple extension method which lets you do away with it completely:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void Invoke<TControlType>(this TControlType control, Action<TControlType> del)
where TControlType : Control
{
if (control.InvokeRequired)
control.Invoke(new Action(() => del(control)));
else
del(control);
}
}
And then you can simply do this:
textbox1.Invoke(t => t.Text = "A");
No more messing around - simple.
Controls in .NET are not generally thread safe. That means you shouldn't access a control from a thread other than the one where it lives. To get around this, you need to invoke the control, which is what your 2nd sample is attempting.
However, in your case all you've done is pass the long-running method back to the main thread. Of course, that's not really what you want to do. You need to rethink this a little so that all you're doing on the main thread is setting a quick property here and there.
The cleanest (and proper) solution for UI cross-threading issues is to use SynchronizationContext, see Synchronizing calls to the UI in a multi-threaded application article, it explains it very nicely.
Follow the simplest (in my opinion) way to modify objects from another thread:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Threading;
namespace TESTE
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Action<string> DelegateTeste_ModifyText = THREAD_MOD;
Invoke(DelegateTeste_ModifyText, "MODIFY BY THREAD");
}
private void THREAD_MOD(string teste)
{
textBox1.Text = teste;
}
}
}
A new look using Async/Await and callbacks. You only need one line of code if you keep the extension method in your project.
/// <summary>
/// A new way to use Tasks for Asynchronous calls
/// </summary>
public class Example
{
/// <summary>
/// No more delegates, background workers etc. just one line of code as shown below
/// Note it is dependent on the XTask class shown next.
/// </summary>
public async void ExampleMethod()
{
//Still on GUI/Original Thread here
//Do your updates before the next line of code
await XTask.RunAsync(() =>
{
//Running an asynchronous task here
//Cannot update GUI Thread here, but can do lots of work
});
//Can update GUI/Original thread on this line
}
}
/// <summary>
/// A class containing extension methods for the Task class
/// Put this file in folder named Extensions
/// Use prefix of X for the class it Extends
/// </summary>
public static class XTask
{
/// <summary>
/// RunAsync is an extension method that encapsulates the Task.Run using a callback
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Code">The caller is called back on the new Task (on a different thread)</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public async static Task RunAsync(Action Code)
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Code();
});
return;
}
}
You can add other things to the Extension method such as wrapping it in a Try/Catch statement, allowing caller to tell it what type to return after completion, an exception callback to caller:
Adding Try Catch, Auto Exception Logging and CallBack
/// <summary>
/// Run Async
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type to return</typeparam>
/// <param name="Code">The callback to the code</param>
/// <param name="Error">The handled and logged exception if one occurs</param>
/// <returns>The type expected as a competed task</returns>
public async static Task<T> RunAsync<T>(Func<string,T> Code, Action<Exception> Error)
{
var done = await Task<T>.Run(() =>
{
T result = default(T);
try
{
result = Code("Code Here");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("Unhandled Exception: " + ex.Message);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
Error(ex);
}
return result;
});
return done;
}
public async void HowToUse()
{
//We now inject the type we want the async routine to return!
var result = await RunAsync<bool>((code) => {
//write code here, all exceptions are logged via the wrapped try catch.
//return what is needed
return someBoolValue;
},
error => {
//exceptions are already handled but are sent back here for further processing
});
if (result)
{
//we can now process the result because the code above awaited for the completion before
//moving to this statement
}
}
This is not the recommended way to solve this error but you can suppress it quickly, it will do the job . I prefer this for prototypes or demos . add
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false
in Form1() constructor .
You need to look at the Backgroundworker example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Especially how it interacts with the UI layer. Based on your posting, this seems to answer your issues.
Here is an alternative way if the object you are working with doesn't have
(InvokeRequired)
This is useful if you are working with the main form in a class other than the main form with an object that is in the main form, but doesn't have InvokeRequired
delegate void updateMainFormObject(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text);
private void updateFormObjectType(FormObjectType objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
MainForm.Invoke(new updateMainFormObject(UpdateObject), objectWithoutInvoke, text);
}
public void UpdateObject(ToolStripStatusLabel objectWithoutInvoke, string text)
{
objectWithoutInvoke.Text = text;
}
It works the same as above, but it is a different approach if you don't have an object with invokerequired, but do have access to the MainForm
I found a need for this while programming an iOS-Phone monotouch app controller in a visual studio winforms prototype project outside of xamarin stuidio. Preferring to program in VS over xamarin studio as much as possible, I wanted the controller to be completely decoupled from the phone framework. This way implementing this for other frameworks like Android and Windows Phone would be much easier for future uses.
I wanted a solution where the GUI could respond to events without the burden of dealing with the cross threading switching code behind every button click. Basically let the class controller handle that to keep the client code simple. You could possibly have many events on the GUI where as if you could handle it in one place in the class would be cleaner. I am not a multi theading expert, let me know if this is flawed.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ExampleController.MyController controller;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
controller = new ExampleController.MyController((ISynchronizeInvoke) this);
controller.Finished += controller_Finished;
}
void controller_Finished(string returnValue)
{
label1.Text = returnValue;
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
controller.SubmitTask("Do It");
}
}
The GUI form is unaware the controller is running asynchronous tasks.
public delegate void FinishedTasksHandler(string returnValue);
public class MyController
{
private ISynchronizeInvoke _syn;
public MyController(ISynchronizeInvoke syn) { _syn = syn; }
public event FinishedTasksHandler Finished;
public void SubmitTask(string someValue)
{
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state => submitTask(someValue));
}
private void submitTask(string someValue)
{
someValue = someValue + " " + DateTime.Now.ToString();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
//Finished(someValue); This causes cross threading error if called like this.
if (Finished != null)
{
if (_syn.InvokeRequired)
{
_syn.Invoke(Finished, new object[] { someValue });
}
else
{
Finished(someValue);
}
}
}
}
Simple and re-usable way to work around this problem.
Extension Method
public static class FormExts
{
public static void LoadOnUI(this Form frm, Action action)
{
if (frm.InvokeRequired) frm.Invoke(action);
else action.Invoke();
}
}
Sample Usage
private void OnAnyEvent(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
this.LoadOnUI(() =>
{
label1.Text = "";
button1.Text = "";
});
}
Along the same lines as previous answers,
but a very short addition that Allows to use all Control properties without having cross thread invokation exception.
Helper Method
/// <summary>
/// Helper method to determin if invoke required, if so will rerun method on correct thread.
/// if not do nothing.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="c">Control that might require invoking</param>
/// <param name="a">action to preform on control thread if so.</param>
/// <returns>true if invoke required</returns>
public bool ControlInvokeRequired(Control c, Action a)
{
if (c.InvokeRequired) c.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
a();
}));
else return false;
return true;
}
Sample Usage
// usage on textbox
public void UpdateTextBox1(String text)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(textBox1, () => UpdateTextBox1(text))) return;
textBox1.Text = ellapsed;
}
//Or any control
public void UpdateControl(Color c, String s)
{
//Check if invoke requied if so return - as i will be recalled in correct thread
if (ControlInvokeRequired(myControl, () => UpdateControl(c, s))) return;
myControl.Text = s;
myControl.BackColor = c;
}
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate
{
//your code here;
}));
For example to get the text from a Control of the UI thread:
Private Delegate Function GetControlTextInvoker(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Private Function GetControlText(ByVal ctl As Control) As String
Dim text As String
If ctl.InvokeRequired Then
text = CStr(ctl.Invoke(
New GetControlTextInvoker(AddressOf GetControlText), ctl))
Else
text = ctl.Text
End If
Return text
End Function
Same question : how-to-update-the-gui-from-another-thread-in-c
Two Ways:
Return value in e.result and use it to set yout textbox value in backgroundWorker_RunWorkerCompleted event
Declare some variable to hold these kind of values in a separate class (which will work as data holder) . Create static instance of this class adn you can access it over any thread.
Example:
public class data_holder_for_controls
{
//it will hold value for your label
public string status = string.Empty;
}
class Demo
{
public static data_holder_for_controls d1 = new data_holder_for_controls();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadStart ts = new ThreadStart(perform_logic);
Thread t1 = new Thread(ts);
t1.Start();
t1.Join();
//your_label.Text=d1.status; --- can access it from any thread
}
public static void perform_logic()
{
//put some code here in this function
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
//statements here
}
//set result in status variable
d1.status = "Task done";
}
}
Simply use this:
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
YourControl.Property= value; // runs thread safe
});
Action y; //declared inside class
label1.Invoke(y=()=>label1.Text="text");
There are two options for cross thread operations.
Control.InvokeRequired Property
and second one is to use
SynchronizationContext Post Method
Control.InvokeRequired is only useful when working controls inherited from Control class while SynchronizationContext can be used anywhere. Some useful information is as following links
Cross Thread Update UI | .Net
Cross Thread Update UI using SynchronizationContext | .Net
I want my program to keep sending messages to a window (AppActivate(os)) even if that program is not in the foreground. Let's my program is open and I set it to App1 to send messages over and over, and I want to browse facebook. How can I make it so my program still runs in the background and sends messages while I browse facebook?
os = combobox1.text
The combobox retrieves each window handle.
Use a thread of your function. It will not end until killed in task manager.
using System;
using System.Threading;
class Test
{
static void Main()
{
Thread newThread =
new Thread(new ThreadStart(Work.DoWork));
newThread.Start();
}
}
class Work
{
Work() {}
public static void DoWork()
{
for(;;)
{//FACEBOOK SPAMMER}
}
}
More at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xx3ezzs2(v=vs.110).aspx
Is there a way to inject a variable into a running process without a process listening for RPC requests?
For example if a process was running and using an environment variable, could I change that environment variable at runtime and make the process use the new value?
Are there alternative solutions for dynamically changing variables in a running process? Assume that this process is like a PHP process or a Javascript (node.js) process so I can change the source code... etc.
I think this is similar to passing state or communicating to another process, but I need a really lightweight way of doing so, without going over the network or using libraries or preferably not setting up an RPC server.
Solution does not have to be cross-platform. Prefer Linux.
You can do it it java. Imagine this is your thread class:
public void ThreadClass extends Thread {
Boolean state;
ThreadClass(Boolean b) {
state = b;
}
public void StopThread() {
state = false;
}
public void run() {
while(state) { //Do whatever you want here}
}
}
Now all you have to do is start this thread from your main class:
ThreadClass thread = new ThreadClass(true);
thread.start();
And if you want to change the value of state, call the StopThread method in the thread like so:
try {
thread.StopThread();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(NewClass.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
This will change the state of the Boolean while the thread is running.
It appears that local IPC implementations like shared memory is the way to go: Fastest technique to pass messages between processes on Linux?
Environment:
I have a program - named CSIS - which I need to run a lot of automated tests on in Visual Studio 2010 using C#. I have a series of functions which need to be run in many different orders but which all start and end at the same 'home screen' of CSIS. The tests will either be run on their own as a single CodedUITest (.cs filetype) or as an ordered test (.orderedtest filetype).
Goal:
The goal is to open to the CSIS homepage once no matter which of the unit tests is run first and then, after all CodedUITests are finished, no matter which unit test is last, the automated test will close CSIS. I don't want to create a separate unit test to open CSIS to the homepage and another to close CSIS as this is very inconvenient for testers to use.
Current Solution Development:
UPDATE: The new big question is how do I get '[ClassInitialize]' to work?
Additional Thoughts:
UPDATE: I now just need ClassInitialize to execute code at the beginning and ClassCleanUp to execute code at the end of a test set.
If you would like the actual code let me know.
Research Update:
Because of Izcd's answer I was able to more accurately research the answer to my own question. I've found an answer online to my problem.
Unfortunately, I don't understand how to implement it in my code. I pasted the code as shown below in the 'Code' section of this question and the test runs fine except that it executes the OpenWindow() and CloseWindow() functions after each test instead of around the whole test set. So ultimately the code does nothing new. How do I fix this?
static private UIMap sharedTest = new UIMap();
[ClassInitialize]
static public void ClassInit(TestContext context)
{
Playback.Initialize();
try
{
sharedTest.OpenCustomerKeeper();
}
finally
{
Playback.Cleanup();
}
}
=====================================================================================
Code
namespace CSIS_TEST
{
//a ton of 'using' statements are here
public partial class UIMap
{
#region Class Initializization and Cleanup
static private UIMap sharedTest = new UIMap();
[ClassInitialize]
static public void ClassInit(TestContext context)
{
Playback.Initialize();
try
{
sharedTest.OpenWindow();
}
finally
{
Playback.Cleanup();
}
}
[ClassCleanup]
static public void ClassCleanup()
{
Playback.Initialize();
try
{
sharedTest.CloseWindow();
}
finally
{
Playback.Cleanup();
}
}
#endregion
Microsoft's unit testing framework includes ClassInitialise and ClassCleanUp attributes which can be used to indicate methods that execute functionality before and after a test run.
( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182517.aspx )
Rather than try and make the unit tests aware of their position, I would suggest it might be better to embed the opening and closing logic of the home screen within the aforementioned ClassInitialise and ClassCleanUp marked methods.
I figured out the answer after a very long process of asking questions on StackOverflow, Googling, and just screwing around with the code.
The answer is to use AssemblyInitialize and AssemblyCleanup and to write the code for them inside the DatabaseSetup.cs file which should be auto-generated in your project. You should find that there already is a AssemblyInitialize function in here but it is very basic and there is no AssemblyCleanup after it. All you need to do is create a static copy of your UIMap and use it inside the AssemblyInitialize to run your OpenWindow() code.
Copy the format of the AssemblyInitialize function to create an AssemblyCleanup function and add your CloseWindow() function.
Make sure your Open/CloseWindow functions only contains basic code (such as Process.Start/Kill) as any complex variables such as forms have been cleaned up already and won't work.
Here is the code in my DatabaseSetup.cs:
using System.Data;
using System.Data.Common;
using System.Configuration;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;
using Microsoft.Data.Schema.UnitTesting;
using System.Windows.Input;
using Keyboard = Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UITesting.Keyboard;
using Mouse = Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UITesting.Mouse;
using MouseButtons = System.Windows.Forms.MouseButtons;
namespace CSIS_TEST
{
[TestClass()]
public class DatabaseSetup
{
static private UIMap uIMap = new UIMap();
static int count = 0;
[AssemblyInitialize()]
public static void InitializeAssembly(TestContext ctx)
{
DatabaseTestClass.TestService.DeployDatabaseProject();
DatabaseTestClass.TestService.GenerateData();
if(count < 1)
uIMap.OpenWindow();
count++;
}
[AssemblyCleanup()]
public static void InitializeAssembly()
{
uIMap.CloseWindow();
}
}
}
I´m writing on an service to watch for the existence different files in diffent folders...
I´m using filesystemwatchers to get the events.
As a part of the deployment one of the watched folders is deleted and new created from time to time.
As a result the service throws an error and is stopped...
Is it possible to catch that kind of error and recreate the filewatcher on the new folder by the service?
Catch the deleted event, and then reschedule with timed poll to watch a new one?
I don't have a compiler to hand right now but I knocked up this pseudo code:
using System;
using System.IO;
public class Watcher : IDisposable{
void Dispose(){ watcher.OnDeleted -= onDelete; }
string file;
FileSystemWatcher watcher;
FileSystemEventHandler onDelete;
public class Watch(string file, FileSystemEventHandler onDelete) {
this.file = file;
watcher = new FileSystemWatcher{ Path = file }
this.OnDelete = onDelete;
watcher.Deleted += onDelete;
watcher.NotifyFilter = ...; // looking for delete event;
// Begin watching.
watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
}
public static class watch {
Watcher watcher;
public static void Main() {
watcher = new Watcher("somedir", ondeleted);
SetUpChangeWatchers();
while(true){
// stuff!
}
CleanUpChangeWatchers();
}
private static void ondeleted(object source, RenamedEventArgs e){
CleanUpChangeWatchers();
watcher.Dispose();
while(!directoryRecreated(file)){
Thread.Sleep(...some delay..);
}
SetUpChangeWatchers();
watcher = new Watcher("somedir", ondeleted);
}
}
You can handle this with the .deleted event. However, if you delete the directory assigned to the filesystemwatcher.Path, it may cause an error. One way around this is to assign the parent of the watched directory to filesystemwatcher.Path. Then it should catch the deletion in the .deleted event.
It is also possible to have an error inside the handler if you try to access the directory just deleted. When this happens, you may not get the normal breakpoint and it seems like it's caused by the deletion itself.