I am currently using this code tu call a webservice to get data for an application page.
Everything is fine until I try to call this method 10 times in a row without waiting for the first call to finish.
Doing so is causing me to have a problem with closures and I get the same result object for all my results.
has anyone faced this with Rx.Net before? if so does anyone have an idea or a lead so that I may resolve this issue.
public void GetPage(long pageId, Action<PageDTO> observer)
{
Observable.FromEvent<GetPageCompletedEventArgs>(
handler => Service.GetPageCompleted += handler,
handler => Service.GetPageCompleted -= handler)
.Select(eventHandler => eventHandler.EventArgs.Result)
.Take(1) // necessary to ensure the observable unsubscribes
.ObserveOnDispatcher() // controls which thread the observer runs on;
.Subscribe(observer, HandleError);
Service.GetPageAsync(pageId);
}
Is Service always the same instance? If so, you're going to run into all kinds of craziness whereby GetPageCompleted events will be handled by the FromEvent created by a different call (with different arguments), which would explain why your results are the same for all methods that were called at the same time.
You can get around this specific issue by using the Begin/End methods, though you will still likely run into problems with contention on the underlying connection.
public void GetPage(long pageId, Action<PageDTO> observer)
{
Observable.FromAsyncPattern<long, PageDTO>(
service.BeginGetAwards, service.EndGetAwards)(pageId)
.ObserveOnDispatcher() // controls which thread the observer runs on;
.Subscribe(observer, HandleError);
}
Related
Updated below...
So this is a random question that came about from a discussion over what I consider the over usage of await in projects at work...
Not sure why I never tried it until now, other than the fact that it's weird and random, but the fact it does work just makes me wonder...how?
The .Result usage was only used to get the responseMessage. I know that is blocking and no bueno and it is for demo purposes only...
So this endpoint works fine...nothing is awaited
[HttpGet("kitteh")]
public Task<string> GetCatFact()
{
var client = new HttpClient();
var res = client.GetAsync("https://catfact.ninja/fact").Result;
return res.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
}
There's obviously something in the default ASP.NET pipleline that ultimately unwraps the task in order to return the result...but where...or how?
Is this "less efficient" than awaiting in the endpoint itself as the magic taking place behind the scenes is ultimately just blocking to get the result of the returned task?
Updated
So, I am still skeptical and don't think the answer is as easy as "yes it is blocking" or "not it is not blocking" unless there's some legit proof or something to indicate one way or the other. I tried digging through the code myself, and I still don't have a solid answer but...I do know more than I did before...
I simplified the endpoints I have been testing this with...
[HttpGet("taskstring")]
public Task<string> TaskString()
{
return Task.FromResult("Where does this block?");
}
[HttpGet("asyncstring")]
public async Task<string> AsyncString()
{
return await Task.FromResult("This definitely doesn't block");
}
I stepped through a bunch of code and ultimately landed on ObjectMethodExecutor and AwaitableObjectResultExecutor which sparked some interest.
What appears to happen for both the endpoint versions above is the same or nearly the same, at least the execution of these two endpoints and the code covered below. There's a boatload that goes on during this and even though the rider debugger is great, it's not possible to see a lot of the values while debugging due to "Evaluation is not allowed: The thread is not at a GC-safe point".
When the endpoint is called but prior to the endpoint beginning execution...
ObjectMethodExecutor.ctor is called
This does a lot of inspection of the endpoint to determine a bunch of things
One of the checks is to is determine if the method is "async" and it ultimately calls AwaitableInfo.IsTypeAwaitable to check for the required methods/properties and interfaces to ensure it is
If it is, which in the case of returning Task of string it is, makes sense given the above info
ObjectMethodExecutor.GetExecutorAsync() is called
AwaitableObjectResultExecutor.Execute is then called
this type inherits ActionMethodExecutor which overrides the Execute method
executor.ExecuteAsync(executor type of ObjectMethodExecutorAwaitable) is then called, and awaited
this returns a result of type object, boxing yeah I know
The endpoint then actually executes and returns to AwaitableObjectResultExecutor.Execute
the result is then passed to ConvertToActionResult along with the return type, the T of Task of T and the mapper implementation
the mapped ActionResult is then returned
So...I'm still not certain 100% either way but there is a lot of effort put into inspecting the endpoint that is being called and determining if it's async or not, which would make it seem logical to think this is an attempt to avoid something...maybe blocking?
So...does it block...maybe? Seeing that there is an await from the indirect caller of the endpoint, I'd lean towards, no...but it seems really difficult to say still.
What I do now know is...
It definitely does await the endpoint call, albeit indirectly
It converts the Task of string return type to an IActionResult
An async and task only version seem to follow the exact some flow shown above
A non async version does not
So, based on all of that...#Phil's answer seems to be pretty spot on with what I found...
"The framework supports asynchronous controller actions. In order to do so, it would need to inspect the return value of your methods. If the method returns a Task, it will ultimately await on the result before responding.
Even if your action itself does all the awaiting, it still has to return a Task so the caller will still wait (the alternative being some ugly blocking code)."
Thanks to all for participating in an extremely random question that doesn't hold much value to truly understand
Your assumption here is basically correct...
There's obviously something in the default ASP.NET pipleline that ultimately unwraps the task in order to return the result
The framework supports asynchronous controller actions. In order to do so, it would need to inspect the return value of your methods. If the method returns a Task, it will ultimately await on the result before responding.
Even if your action itself does all the awaiting, it still has to return a Task so the caller will still wait (the alternative being some ugly blocking code).
As has been pointed out in some other posts, there are some performance improvements to be had by not awaiting a returned Task so I would write your action as
public async Task<string> GetCatFact()
{
var client = new HttpClient();
var res = await client.GetAsync("https://catfact.ninja/fact");
return res.Content.ReadAsStringAsync(); // no await
}
Your controller handles waiting for the remote response but delegates waiting for the content stream to the caller.
There's obviously something in the default ASP.NET pipleline that ultimately unwraps the task in order to return the result...but where...or how?
ASP.NET asynchronously waits for your task to complete, and then it sends the HTTP response based on the result of the task. It's logically similar to await: an asynchronous wait.
Is this "less efficient" than awaiting in the endpoint itself as the magic taking place behind the scenes is ultimately just blocking to get the result of the returned task?
Yes. It is less efficient to block.
ASP.NET doesn't block; it asynchronously waits. Blocking ties up a thread. So when the code calls .Result, it will be using a thread just to wait for that HttpClient call to complete.
The proper solution is to keep async and await:
[HttpGet("kitteh")]
public async Task<string> GetCatFact()
{
var client = new HttpClient();
var res = await client.GetAsync("https://catfact.ninja/fact");
return await res.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
}
This way, while the GetAsync is in progress, the thread is yielded back to the ASP.NET runtime and is available for handling other requests, instead of being blocked waiting for the GetAsync to complete.
More information: Task<string> is part of the method signature. ASP.NET has special understanding of the Task<T> type and knows to asynchronously wait for it. async is not part of the method signature. ASP.NET knows whether your method returns Task, but it has no idea whether it's async (and doesn't care). So, in some situations, it's OK to elide the keywords (as described on my blog, but only when the method implementation is trivial. If there's any logic in the method, keep the async and await.
In asp.net core ViewComponent we have to implement logic in an InvokeAsync method that returns an IViewComponentResult. However I do not have any async logic to perform inside the invoke method. So based on SO post here I have removed the async qualifier and just return Task.FromResult
public Task<IViewComponentResult> InvokeAsync(MyBaseModel model)
{
var name = MyFactory.GetViewComponent(model.DocumentTypeID);
return Task.FromResult<IViewComponentResult>(View(name, model));
}
and then in View ( since I don't have async I am not using await here)
#Component.InvokeAsync("MyViewComponent", new { model = Model })
However view renders this:
System.Threading.Tasks.Task1[Microsoft.AspNetCore.Html.IHtmlContent]`
You must await the Component.InvokeAsync. The fact that your method doesn't do anything async doesn't matter. The method itself is async.
However, that's a bit of an oversimplification. Frankly, the ease of the async/await keywords belies how complicated all this actually is. To be accurate, instead of calling these types of methods "async", it's more appropriate to discuss them as "task-returning". A task is essentially a handle for some operation. That operation could be async or sync. It's most closely associated with async, simply because wrapping sync operations in a task would be pretty pointless in most scenarios. However, the point is that just because something must return a task does not also imply that it must be async.
All async does is allow the possibility of a thread switch. In scenarios where there's some operation, typically involving I/O, that would cause the working thread to be idle for some period of time, the thread becomes available to be used for other work, and the original work may complete on a different thread. Notice the use of the passive language here. Async operations can involve no thread switching; the task could complete on the same thread, as if it was sync. The task could even complete immediately, if the underlying operation has already completed.
In your scenario here, you're not doing any async work, which is fine. However, the method definition requires Task<T> as the return, so you must use Task.FromResult to return your actual result. That's all pretty standard stuff, and seems to be understood already by you. What you're missing, I think, is that you're thinking that since you're not actually doing any asynchronous work, it would be wrong to utilize await. There's nothing magical about the await keyword; it basically just means hold here until the task completes. If there's no async work to be done, as is the case here, the sync code will just run as normal and yield back to the calling code when done, However, as a convenience, await also performs one other vital function: it unwraps the task.
That is where your problem lies. Since you're not awaiting, the task itself is being returned into the Razor view processing pipeline. It doesn't know what to do with that, so it does what it does by default and just calls ToString on it, hence the text you're getting back. Unwrapped, you'd just have IViewComponentResult and Razor does know what to do with that.
If your logic performed inside the invoke method is synchronous, i.e., you don't have any await, you have 2 options:
You can define invoke method without async keyword and it should return Task.FromResult<T>
Use public IViewComponentResult Invoke() instead.
I think the async keyword enables the await keyword and that's pretty much about it. Nothing special about async keyword.
On the main thread where your view is getting rendered, since the tag helper method
to invoke a view component Component.InvokeAsync() is awaitable, you do need to put await keyword there to start the task. await examines the view component rendering to see if it has already completed. If it has, then the main thread just keeps going. Otherwise the main thread will tell the ViewComponent to run.
I'd like to add a service that executes some initialization operations for the system when it's first created.
I'd imagine it would be a stateless service (with cluster admin rights) that should self-destruct when it's done it's thing. I am under the impression that exiting the RunAsync function allows me to indicate that I'm finished (or in an error state). However, then it still hangs around on the application's context and annoyingly looking like it's "active" when it's not really doing anything at all.
Is it possible for a service to remove itself?
I think maybe we could try using the FabricClient.ServiceManager's DeleteServiceAsync (using parameters based on the service context) inside an OnCloseAsync override but I've not been able to prove that might work and it feels a little funky:
var client = new FabricClient();
await client.ServiceManager.DeleteServiceAsync(new DeleteServiceDescription(Context.ServiceName));
Is there a better way?
Returning from RunAsync will end the code in RunAsync (indicate completion), so SF won't start RunAsync again (It would if it returned an exception, for example). RunAsync completion doesn't cause the service to be deleted. As mentioned, for example, the service might be done with background work but still listening for incoming messages.
The best way to shut down a service is to call DeleteServiceAsync. This can be done by the service itself or another service, or from outside the cluster. Services can self-delete, so for services whose work is done we typically see await DeleteServiceAsync as the last line of RunAsync, after which the method just exits. Something like:
RunAsync(CancellationToken ct)
{
while(!workCompleted && !ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if(!DoneWithWork())
{
DoWork()
}
if(DoneWithWork())
{
workCompleted == true;
await DeleteServiceAsync(...)
}
}
}
The goal is to ensure that if your service is actually done doing the work it cleans itself up, but doesn't trigger its own deletion for the other reasons that a CancellationToken can get signaled, such as shutting down due to some upgrade or cluster resource balancing.
As mentioned already, returning from RunAsync will end this method only, but the service will continue to run and hence not be deleted.
DeleteServiceAsync certainly is the way to go - however it's not quite as simple as just calling it because if you're not careful it will deadlock on the current thread (especially in local developer cluster). You would also likely get a few short-lived health warnings about RunAsync taking a long time to terminate and/or target replica size not being met.
In any case - solution is quite simple - just do this:
private async Task DeleteSelf(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
using (var client = new FabricClient())
{
await client.ServiceManager.DeleteServiceAsync(new DeleteServiceDescription(this.Context.ServiceName), TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1), cancellationToken);
}
}
Then, in last line of my RunAsync method I call:
await DeleteSelf(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
The ConfigureAwait(false) will help with deadlock issue as it will essentially return to a new thread synchronization context - i.e. not try to return to "caller context".
As I understand it, Hangfire does not support async methods yet. As a workaround, I wrapped my async method calls with AsyncContext.Run() from AsyncEx to make it appear to be synchronous from Hangfire point of view. Exception seems to be bubbled up correctly as expected (unwrapped from AggregateException).
public void Task()
{
AsyncContext.Run(() => TaskAsync());
}
private async Task TaskAsync()
{
//...
}
However, when TaskAsync throws TaskCanceledException, Hangfire does not correctly mark it as "Failed". Instead it will try to process the job again. If TaskAsync keeps on throwing TaskCanceledException, it will be stuck in that state indefinitely instead of stop retrying after 10 times as usual.
It seems to be because Hangfire treats OperationCanceledException as its own control flow, instead of treating it as an exception originating from the job. e.g. here, and here.
Is there any way to get around it, other than wrapping all my Hangfire jobs with catch TaskCanceledException ?
For those who face the same problem as myself, this bug has been fixed in Hangfire 1.4.7.
As per the changeset, Hangfire now checks that the InnerException is not a TaskCanceledException.
I have a WCF function that is executing long time, so I call the function in UI with backgraundworker... I want to give a feature to cancel the execution, so I abort IComunicationObject, the problem is that Service execution is not stoping, Is there any way to stop Service execution in this case?
You may not need a BackgroundWorker. You can either make the operation IsOneWay, or implement the asynchronous pattern. To prevent threading issues, consider using the SynchronizationContext. Programming WCF Services does a great job at explaining these.
Make a CancelOperation() method which sets some static ManualResetEvent in your service. Check this event in your Operation method frequently. Or it can be CancelOperation(Guid operationId) if your service can process multiple operation calls concurrently.
One important thing to understand if you're using the Async calls is that there's still no way to cancel a request and prevent a response coming back from the service once it's started. It's up to your UI to be intelligent in handling responses to avoid race conditions. Fortunately there's a simple way of doing this.
This example is for searching orders - driven by a UI. Lets assume it may take a few seconds to return results and the user is running two searches back to back.
Therefore if your user runs two searches and the first search returns after the second - you need to make sure you don't display the results of the first search.
private int _searchRequestID = 0; // need one for each WCF method you call
// Call our service...
// The call is made using the overload to the Async method with 'UserToken'.
// When the call completes we check the ID matches to avoid a nasty
// race condition
_searchRequestID = _searchRequestID++;
client.SearchOrdersCompleted += (s, e) =>
{
if (_searchRequestID != (int)e.UserState))
{
return; // avoid nasty race condition
}
// ok to handle response ...
}
client.SearchOrdersAsync(searchMessage, _searchRequestID);