If you call a web service from Silverlight like this:
MyServiceClient serviceClient = new MyServiceClient();
void MyMethod()
{
serviceClient.GetDataCompleted += new EventHandler<GetDataCompletedEventArgs>(serviceClient_GetDataCompleted);
serviceClient.GetDataAsync();
// HOW DO I WAIT/JOIN HERE ON THE ASYNC CALL, RATHER THAN BEING FORCE TO LEAVE THIS METHOD?
}
I would rather wait/join with the asych service thread inside "MyMethod" rather than leaving "MyMethod" after calling "GetDataAsync", what is the best way to do this?
Thanks,
Jeff
No you cannot do this way. You will end up in a deadlock. GetDataCompleted is called by the mainthreed. The same threed thait is waiting in WaitOne.
I have to ask; why? The point is to provide your user with a fluid experience and waiting on a web service call will not necessarily do that. I suppose you want the full block of content to load before the Silverlight control loads. In that case, I would turn to caching the content rather than forcing the client to wait indefinitely.
To do this you would use a ManualResetEvent in your class (class level variable) and then wait on it.
void MyMethod()
{
wait = new ManualResetEvent(false);
// call your service
wait.WaitOne();
// finish working
}
and in your event handler code
void serviceClient_GetDataCompleted(...)
{
// Set values you need from service
wait.Set();
}
You could also use a lambda and closure to get similar behavior:
serviceClient.GetDataCompleted += (s,e) =>
{
// Your code here
};
serviceClient.GetDataAsync();
If you had a base class provide the mechanics of building a WCF channel, it could then be used to build the BeginX / EndX methods for a async call.
public class ServiceFooCoordinator : CoordinatorBase<IServiceFoo>
{
public IAsyncResult BeginMethodFoo ()
{
IAsyncResult ar = null;
IServiceFoo channel = null;
channel = _factory.GetChannel();
Begin( channel, () => ar = channel.BeginMethodFoo( null, channel ) );
return ar;
}
public Bar[] EndMethodFoo ( IAsyncResult ar )
{
IServiceFoo channel = null;
channel = _factory.GetChannel();
return channel.EndMethodFoo( ar );
}
}
Which can then be used in a method:
ServiceFooCoordinator _coordinator;
var asyncResult = _coordinator.BeginMethodFoo();
try
{
var result = _coordinator.EndMethodFoo( asyncResult );
}
catch ( Exception )
{ }
Which gets you your asynchronous call in a sychronous manner.
Related
In ASP.NET Core 5 I had a custom Action Result as follows:
public class ErrorResult : ActionResult {
private readonly IList<Error> _errors;
public ErrorResult(IList<Error> errors) {
_errors = errors;
}
public override async Task ExecuteResultAsync(ActionContext context) {
// Code that creates Response
await result.ExecuteResultAsync(context);
}
}
Then on a Controller action I would have:
return new ErrorResult(errors);
How to do something similar in NET 6 Minimal APIs?
I have been looking at it and I think I should implement IResult.
But I am not sure if that is the solution or how to do it.
I have recently been playing around with minimal APIs and and working on global exception handling. Here is what I have come up with so far.
Create a class implementation of IResult
Create a constructor which will take an argument of the details you want going into your IResult response. APIErrorDetails is a custom implementation of mine similar to what you'd see in ProblemDetails in MVC. Method implementation is open to whatever your requirements are.
public class ExceptionAllResult : IResult
{
private readonly ApiErrorDetails _details;
public ExceptionAllResult(ApiErrorDetails details)
{
_details = details;
}
public async Task ExecuteAsync(HttpContext httpContext)
{
var jsonDetails = JsonSerializer.Serialize(_details);
httpContext.Response.ContentType = MediaTypeNames.Application.Json;
httpContext.Response.ContentLength = Encoding.UTF8.GetByteCount(jsonDetails);
httpContext.Response.StatusCode = _details.StatusCode;
await httpContext.Response.WriteAsync(jsonDetails);
}
}
Return result in your exception handling middleware in your Program.cs file.
app.UseExceptionHandler(
x =>
{
x.Run(
async context =>
{
// https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/error-handling?view=aspnetcore-6.0
var exceptionFeature = context.Features.Get<IExceptionHandlerPathFeature>();
// Whatever you want for null handling
if (exceptionFeature is null) throw new Exception();
// My result service for creating my API details from the HTTP context and exception. This returns the Result class seen in the code snippet above
var result = resultService.GetErrorResponse(exceptionFeature.Error, context);
await result.ExecuteAsync(context); // returns the custom result
});
}
);
If you still want to use MVC (Model-View-Controller), you still can use Custom ActionResult.
If you just want to use Minimal APIs to do the response, then you have to implement IResult, Task<IResult> or ValueTask<IResult>.
app.MapGet("/hello", () => Results.Ok(new { Message = "Hello World" }));
The following example uses the built-in result types to customize the response:
app.MapGet("/api/todoitems/{id}", async (int id, TodoDb db) =>
await db.Todos.FindAsync(id)
is Todo todo
? Results.Ok(todo)
: Results.NotFound())
.Produces<Todo>(StatusCodes.Status200OK)
.Produces(StatusCodes.Status404NotFound);
You can find more IResult implementation samples here: https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/tree/main/src/Http/Http.Results/src
Link: Minimal APIs overview | Microsoft Docs
When I lock on a thread on the ThreadPool like this the thread is blocked:
private static object _testServerLock = new object();
private static TestServer _testServer = null;
public TestServer GetServer()
{
lock (_testServerLock)
{
if (_testServer == null)
{
_testServer = new TestServer(); // does some async stuff internally
}
}
return _testServer;
}
If I have too more concurrent threads calling this than I have threads in the ThreadPool all of them will end up waiting for the lock, while async code happening elsewhere can't continue since it is waiting for a free thread in the ThreadPool.
So I don't want to block the thread, I need to return it to the ThreadPool while I am waiting.
Is there some other way to lock which returns the waiting thread to the ThreadPool?
Whatever has to be done inside a lock should be moved into a Task, which is started before the tests and finishes, when it has created its resource.
Whenever a test wants to get the resource created by the task, it can block with an await on the creator-task before accessing the resource. So all accesses to the resource are in tasks and can't block all threads of the pool.
Something like:
private static object _testServerLock = new object();
private static TestServer _testServer = null;
private static Task _testTask = null;
private async Task<TestServer> CreateTestServerAsync()
{
...
}
// Constructor of the fixture
public TestFixture()
{
// The lock here may be ok, because it's before all the async stuff
// and it doesn't wait for something inside
lock (_testServerLock)
{
if (_testTask == null)
{
_testTask = Task.Run(async () => {
// it's better to expose the async nature of the call
_testServer = await CreateTestServerAsync();
});
// or just, whatever works
//_testTask = Task.Run(() => {
// _testServer = new TestServer();
//});
}
}
}
public async Task<TestServer> GetServerAsync()
{
await _testTask;
return _testServer;
}
Update:
You can remove the lock using the initialization of the static member.
private static TestServer _testServer = null;
private static Task _testTask = Task.Run(async () => {
_testServer = await CreateTestServerAsync();
});
private static async Task<TestServer> CreateTestServerAsync()
{
...
}
public TestFixture()
{
}
public async Task<TestServer> GetServerAsync()
{
await _testTask;
return _testServer;
}
With xUnit ~1.7+, the main thing you can do is make your Test Method return Task<T> and then use async/await which will limit your hard-blocking/occupation of threads
xUnit 2.0 + has parallel execution and a mechanism for controlling access to state to be shared among tests. Note however that this fundamentally operates by running one tests in the Test Class at a time and giving the Class Fixture to one at a time (which is equivalent to what normally happens - only one Test Method per class runs at a time). (If you use a Collection Fixture, effectively all the Test Classes in the collection become a single Test Class).
Finally, xUnit 2 offers switches for controlling whether or not:
Assemblies run in parallel with other [Assemblies]
Test Collections/Test Classes run in parallel with others
Both of the prev
You should be able to manage your issue by not hiding the asyncness as you've done and instead either exposing it to the Test Method or by doing build up/teardown via IAsyncLifetime
I have a WCF service which has its Thread.CurrentPrincipal set in the ServiceConfiguration.ClaimsAuthorizationManager.
When I implement the service asynchronously like this:
public IAsyncResult BeginMethod1(AsyncCallback callback, object state)
{
// Audit log call (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
var task = Task<int>.Factory.StartNew(this.WorkerFunction, state);
return task.ContinueWith(res => callback(task));
}
public string EndMethod1(IAsyncResult ar)
{
// Audit log result (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
return ar.AsyncState as string;
}
private int WorkerFunction(object state)
{
// perform work
}
I find that the Thread.CurrentPrincipal is set to the correct ClaimsPrincipal in the Begin-method and also in the WorkerFunction, but in the End-method it's set to a GenericPrincipal.
I know I can enable ASP.NET compatibility for the service and use HttpContext.Current.User which has the correct principal in all methods, but I'd rather not do this.
Is there a way to force the Thread.CurrentPrincipal to the correct ClaimsPrincipal without turning on ASP.NET compatibility?
Starting with a summary of WCF extension points, you'll see the one that is expressly designed to solve your problem. It is called a CallContextInitializer. Take a look at this article which gives CallContextInitializer sample code.
If you make an ICallContextInitializer extension, you will be given control over both the BeginXXX thread context AND the EndXXX thread context. You are saying that the ClaimsAuthorizationManager has correctly established the user principal in your BeginXXX(...) method. In that case, you then make for yourself a custom ICallContextInitializer which either assigns or records the CurrentPrincipal, depending on whether it is handling your BeginXXX() or your EndXXX(). Something like:
public object BeforeInvoke(System.ServiceModel.InstanceContext instanceContext, System.ServiceModel.IClientChannel channel, System.ServiceModel.Channels.Message request){
object principal = null;
if (request.Properties.TryGetValue("userPrincipal", out principal))
{
//If we got here, it means we're about to call the EndXXX(...) method.
Thread.CurrentPrincipal = (IPrincipal)principal;
}
else
{
//If we got here, it means we're about to call the BeginXXX(...) method.
request.Properties["userPrincipal"] = Thread.CurrentPrincipal;
}
...
}
To clarify further, consider two cases. Suppose you implemented both an ICallContextInitializer and an IParameterInspector. Suppose that these hooks are expected to execute with a synchronous WCF service and with an async WCF service (which is your special case).
Below are the sequence of events and the explanation of what is happening:
Synchronous Case
ICallContextInitializer.BeforeInvoke();
IParemeterInspector.BeforeCall();
//...service executes...
IParameterInspector.AfterCall();
ICallContextInitializer.AfterInvoke();
Nothing surprising in the above code. But now look below at what happens with asynchronous service operations...
Asynchronous Case
ICallContextInitializer.BeforeInvoke(); //TryGetValue() fails, so this records the UserPrincipal.
IParameterInspector.BeforeCall();
//...Your BeginXXX() routine now executes...
ICallContextInitializer.AfterInvoke();
//...Now your Task async code executes (or finishes executing)...
ICallContextInitializercut.BeforeInvoke(); //TryGetValue succeeds, so this assigns the UserPrincipal.
//...Your EndXXX() routine now executes...
IParameterInspector.AfterCall();
ICallContextInitializer.AfterInvoke();
As you can see, the CallContextInitializer ensures you have opportunity to initialize values such as your CurrentPrincipal just before the EndXXX() routine runs. It therefore doesn't matter that the EndXXX() routine assuredly is executing on a different thread than did the BeginXXX() routine. And yes, the System.ServiceModel.Channels.Message object which is storing your user principal between Begin/End methods, is preserved and properly transmitted by WCF even though the thread changed.
Overall, this approach allows your EndXXX(IAsyncresult) to execute with the correct IPrincipal, without having to explicitly re-establish the CurrentPrincipal in the EndXXX() routine. And as with any WCF behavior, you can decide if this applies to individual operations, all operations on a contract, or all operations on an endpoint.
Not really the answer to my question, but an alternate approach of implementing the WCF service (in .NET 4.5) that does not exhibit the same issues with Thread.CurrentPrincipal.
public async Task<string> Method1()
{
// Audit log call (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
try
{
return await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => this.WorkerFunction());
}
finally
{
// Audit log result (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
}
}
private string WorkerFunction()
{
// perform work
return string.Empty;
}
The valid approach to this is to create an extension:
public class SLOperationContext : IExtension<OperationContext>
{
private readonly IDictionary<string, object> items;
private static ReaderWriterLockSlim _instanceLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
private SLOperationContext()
{
items = new Dictionary<string, object>();
}
public IDictionary<string, object> Items
{
get { return items; }
}
public static SLOperationContext Current
{
get
{
SLOperationContext context = OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Find<SLOperationContext>();
if (context == null)
{
_instanceLock.EnterWriteLock();
context = new SLOperationContext();
OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Add(context);
_instanceLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
return context;
}
}
public void Attach(OperationContext owner) { }
public void Detach(OperationContext owner) { }
}
Now this extension is used as a container for objects that you want to persist between thread switching as OperationContext.Current will remain the same.
Now you can use this in BeginMethod1 to save current user:
SLOperationContext.Current.Items["Principal"] = OperationContext.Current.ClaimsPrincipal;
And then in EndMethod1 you can get the user by typing:
ClaimsPrincipal principal = SLOperationContext.Current.Items["Principal"];
EDIT (Another approach):
public IAsyncResult BeginMethod1(AsyncCallback callback, object state)
{
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(this.WorkerFunction, state);
var ec = ExecutionContext.Capture();
return task.ContinueWith(res =>
ExecutionContext.Run(ec, (_) => callback(task), null));
}
I inherited a Silverlight 5 application. On the server side, it has a DomainContext (service) with a method marked as
[Invoke]
public void DoIt
{
do stuff for 10 seconds here
}
On the client side, it has a ViewModel method containing this:
var q = Context.DoIt(0);
var x=1; var y=2;
q.Completed += (a,b) => DoMore(x,y);
My 2 questions are
1) has DoIt already been activated by the time I attach q.Completed, and
2) does the return type (void) enter into the timing at all?
Now, I know there's another way to call DoIt, namely:
var q = Context.DoIt(0,myCallback);
This leads me to think the two ways of making the call are mutually exclusive.
Although DoIt() is executed on a remote computer, it is best to attach Completed event handler immediately. Otherwise, when the process completes, you might miss out on the callback.
You are correct. The two ways of calling DoIt are mutually exclusive.
If you have complicated logic, you may want to consider using the Bcl Async library. See this blog post.
Using async, your code will look like this:
// Note: you will need the OperationExtensions helper
public async void CallDoItAndDosomething()
{
this.BusyIndicator.IsBusy = true;
await context.DoIt(0).AsTask();
this.BusyIndicator.IsBusy = false;
}
public static class OperationExtensions
{
public static Task<T> AsTask<T>(this T operation)
where T : OperationBase
{
TaskCompletionSource<T> tcs =
new TaskCompletionSource<T>(operation.UserState);
operation.Completed += (sender, e) =>
{
if (operation.HasError && !operation.IsErrorHandled)
{
tcs.TrySetException(operation.Error);
operation.MarkErrorAsHandled();
}
else if (operation.IsCanceled)
{
tcs.TrySetCanceled();
}
else
{
tcs.TrySetResult(operation);
}
};
return tcs.Task;
}
}
I read that the best practice for using WCF proxy would be:
YourClientProxy clientProxy = new YourClientProxy();
try
{
.. use your service
clientProxy.Close();
}
catch(FaultException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
catch(CommunicationException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
clientProxy.Abort();
}
My problem is, after I allocate my proxy, I assign event handlers to it and also initialize other method using the proxy:
public void InitProxy()
{
sdksvc = new SdkServiceClient();
sdksvc.InitClusteringObjectCompleted += new EventHandler<InitClusteringObjectCompletedEventArgs>(sdksvc_InitClusteringObjectCompleted);
sdksvc.InitClusteringObjectAsync(Utils.DSN, Utils.USER,Utils.PASSWORD);
sdksvc.DoClusteringCompleted += new EventHandler<DoClusteringCompletedEventArgs>(sdksvc_DoClusteringCompleted);
sdksvc.CreateTablesCompleted += new EventHandler<CreateTablesCompletedEventArgs>(sdksvc_CreateTablesCompleted);
}
I now need to call the InitProxy() method each Time I use the proxy if I want to use it as best practice suggests.
Any ideas on how to avoid this?
There are several options. One option is to write a helper class as follows:
public class SvcClient : IDisposable {
public SvcClient(ICommunicationObject service) {
if( service == null ) {
throw ArgumentNullException("service");
}
_service = service;
// Add your event handlers here, e.g. using your example:
sdksvc = new SdkServiceClient();
sdksvc.InitClusteringObjectCompleted += new EventHandler<InitClusteringObjectCompletedEventArgs>(sdksvc_InitClusteringObjectCompleted);
sdksvc.InitClusteringObjectAsync(Utils.DSN, Utils.USER,Utils.PASSWORD);
sdksvc.DoClusteringCompleted += new EventHandler<DoClusteringCompletedEventArgs>(sdksvc_DoClusteringCompleted);
sdksvc.CreateTablesCompleted += new EventHandler<CreateTablesCompletedEventArgs>(sdksvc_CreateTablesCompleted);
}
public void Dispose() {
try {
if( _service.State == CommunicationState.Faulted ) {
_service.Abort();
}
}
finally {
_service.Close();
}
}
private readonly ICommunicationObject _service;
}
To use this class write the following:
var clientProxy = new YourClientProxy();
using(new SvcClient(clientProxy)) {
// use clientProxy as usual. No need to call Abort() and/or Close() here.
}
When the constructor for SvcClient is called it then sets up the SdkServiceClient instance as desired. Furthermore the SvcClient class cleans up the service client proxy as well aborting and/or closing the connection as needed regardless of how the control flow leaves the using-block.
I don't see how the ClientProxy and the InitProxy() are linked but if they are linked this strong I'd move the initialization of the ClientProxy to the InitProxy (or make a method that initializes both) so you can control both their lifespans from there.