Shared Sub New()
'Await setAllAccountsAsync()
SetAllAccounts()
End Sub
This one works
However,
Shared Sub New()
Await setAllAccountsAsync()
'SetAllAccounts()
End Sub
doesn't
Shared async Sub New()
Await setAllAccountsAsync()
'SetAllAccounts()
End Sub
also doesn't work
However
Private Shared Async Sub SetAllAccounts()
Await setAllAccountsAsync()
End Sub
works fine.
So we can return void in an async but we cannot do that in the constructor. Why? Is this true?
Note:
I do not want this to be a constructor actually. Noticed it's shared new rather than new. I just want some code to be run once. For example, in my case, the initializer would surf web and find all the trading pair and store the trading pairs in a private variable. I want that to be done before the class is used.
The content of setAllAccountsAsync is the following
Private Async Function initializeAsync() As Task
_marketid = Await CookieAwareWebClient.downloadString1Async("https://www.coinexchange.io/api/v1/getmarkets")
End Function
Is this true?
Yes.
Why?
Async Sub (or async void) methods were added to C# and VB so that event handlers could be asynchronous. You should avoid Async Sub in all other situations. Specifically, Async Sub is not a valid way to implement a constructor.
Constructors cannot be asynchronous, and the language is likely to keep this principle for the foreseeable future. If you need to asynchronously construct an instance, you should use a factory method, i.e., a static method that returns Task(Of T) for whatever T your type is. More details and alternative approaches are described in my blog post on async constructors.
Related
I recently ran into this error. I have never came across this before so wondering!
Cannot access a disposed context instance. A common cause of this error is disposing a context instance that was resolved from dependency injection and then later trying to use the same context instance elsewhere in your application. This may occur if you are calling 'Dispose' on the context instance, or wrapping it in a using statement. If you are using dependency injection, you should let the dependency injection container take care of disposing context instances.
Object name: 'OrderDbContext'.
The only thing i missed which produced this error is the await keyword in the controller action method before _mediator.Send(checkoutCommand); Once I added the await keyword this error vanished.
What (the heck) is wrong with missing this await keyword? The error does not explicitly state that. Can someone explain why missing an await keyword cause an error that database context is disposed?
Controller Action:
public async Task<IActionResult> Checkout(CheckoutOrderCommand checkoutCommand)
{
**var id = _mediator.Send(checkoutCommand);**
return CreatedAtRoute("Get Order by Id", id);
}
CQRS Mediatr Instructions
public class CheckoutOrderCommandHandler : IRequestHandler<CheckoutOrderCommand, int>
{
private readonly IOrderUow _orderUow;
private readonly IMapper _mapper;
public CheckoutOrderCommandHandler(IOrderUow orderUow,
IMapper mapper)
{
_orderUow = orderUow;
_mapper = mapper;
}
public async Task<int> Handle(CheckoutOrderCommand request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var order = _mapper.Map<Order>(request);
// Populate base entity fields
order.CreatedBy = Constants.CurrentUser;
// create new order
var newOrder = await _orderUow.AddOrderAsync(order);
return newOrder.Id;
}
}
Unit of work implementation
public class OrderUow : IOrderUow
{
private readonly OrderDbContext _orderContext;
public OrderUow(OrderDbContext orderContext)
{
_orderContext = orderContext;
}
public async Task<Order> AddOrderAsync(Order order)
{
try
{
await _orderContext.Orders.AddAsync(order);
await _orderContext.SaveChangesAsync();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
return order;
}
}
Missing an await without explicitly handling the task that is returned will mean that the code calling the asynchronous method will not create a resumption point and instead will continue executing to completion, in your case leading to the disposal of the DbContext.
Asyncrhronous code is multi-threaded behind the scenes. Think of it this way, your web request enters on Thread #1 which creates a DbContext instance via an IoC container, calls an asynchronous method, then returns. When the code calls an async method, it automatically hands that code off to a worker thread to execute. By adding await you tell .Net to create a resume point to come back to. That may be the original calling thread, or a new worker thread, though the important thing is that the calling code will resume only after the async method completes. Without await, there is no resume point, so the calling code continues after the async method call. This can lead to all kinds of bad behaviour. The calling code can end up completing and disposing the DbContext (what you are seeing) or if it calls another operation against the DbContext you could end up with an exception complaining about access across multiple threads since a DbContext detects that and does not allow access across threads.
You can observe the threading behaviour by inspecting Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId before the async method call, inside the async method, then after the async method call.
Without the await you would see Thread #X before the method call, then Thread #Y inside the async method, then back to Thread #X after. While debugging it would most likely appear to work since the worker thread would likely finish by the time you were done with the breakpoints, but at runtime that worker thread (Y) would have been started, but the code after the call on thread X would continue running, ultimately disposing of your DbContext likely before Thread Y was finished executing. With the await call, you would likely see Thread #X before the method call, Thread #Y inside, then Thread #Z after the call. The breakpoint after the async call would only be triggered after the async method completes. Thread #X would be released while waiting for the async method, but the DbContext etc. wouldn't be disposed until the resumption point created by awaiting the async method had run. It is possible that the code can resume on the original thread (X) if that thread is available in the pool.
This is a very good reason to follow the general naming convention for asynchronous methods to use the "Async" suffix for the method name. If your Mediator.Send method is async, consider naming it "SendAsync" to make missing await statements a lot more obvious. Also check those compiler warnings! If your project has a lot of warnings that are being ignored, this is a good reason to go through and clean them up so new warnings like this can be spotted quickly and fixed. This is one of the first things I do when starting with a new client is look at how many warnings the team has been ignoring and pointing out some of the nasty ones they weren't aware were lurking in the code base hidden by the noise.
I have a lot of native classes that accept some form of callbacks, usually a boost::signals2::slot-object.
But for simplicity, lets assume the class:
class Test
{
// set a callback that will be invoked at an unspecified time
// will be removed when Test class dies
void SetCallback(std::function<void(bool)> callback);
}
Now I have a managed class that wraps this native class, and I would like to pass a callback method to the native class.
public ref class TestWrapper
{
public:
TestWrapper()
: _native(new Test())
{
}
~TestWrapper()
{
delete _native;
}
private:
void CallbackMethod(bool value);
Test* _native;
};
now usually what I would do is the following:
Declare a method in the managed wrapper that is the callback I want.
Create a managed delegate object to this method.
Use GetFunctionPointerForDelegate to obtain a pointer to a function
Cast the pointer to the correct signature
Pass the pointer to the native class as callback.
I also keep the delegate alive since I fear it will be garbage collected and I will have a dangling function pointer (is this assumption correct?)
this looks kind of like this:
_managedDelegateMember = gcnew ManagedEventHandler(this, &TestWrapper::Callback);
System::IntPtr stubPointer = Marshal::GetFunctionPointerForDelegate(_managedDelegateMember);
UnmanagedEventHandlerFunctionPointer functionPointer = static_cast<UnmanagedEventHandlerFunctionPointer >(stubPointer.ToPointer());
_native->SetCallback(functionPointer);
I Would like to reduce the amount of code and not have to perform any casts nor declare any delegate types. I want to use a lambda expression with no delegate.
This is my new approach:
static void SetCallbackInternal(TestWrapper^ self)
{
gcroot<TestWrapper^> instance(self);
self->_native->SetCallback([instance](bool value)
{
// access managed class from within native code
instance->Value = value;
}
);
}
Declare a static method that accepts this in order to be able to use C++11 lambda.
Use gcroot to capture the managed class in the lambda and extend its lifetime for as long as the lambda is alive.
No casts, no additional delegate type nor members, minimal extra allocation.
Question:
Is this approach safe? I'm fearing I'm missing something and that this can cause a memory leak / undefined behavior in some unanticipated scenario.
EDIT:
this approach leads to a MethodAccessException when the lambda calls a private method of its managed wrapper class. seems like this method must at least be internal.
I think that you should not be using gcroot but a shared pointer. Shared pointer are made to keep an object alive as long as someone is using it.
You should also use a more c++ style in your whole code by replacing raw pointer with smart pointer and template instead of std::function (a lambda can be stored in a compile time type).
For example using the code you posted :
class Test
{
// set a callback that will be invoked at an unspecified time
// will be removed when Test class dies
template <class T>
void SetCallback(T callback); // Replaced std::function<void(bool)> with T
}
public ref class TestWrapper
{
public:
TestWrapper()
: _native()
{}
private:
void CallbackMethod(bool value);
std::unique_ptr<Test> _native; // Replaced Test* with std::unique_ptr<Test>
};
After replacing the old method with this new method all over my code base, I can report that it is safe, more succinct, and as far as I can tell, no memory leaks occur.
Hence I highly recommend this method for passing managed callbacks to native code.
The only caveats I found were the following:
Using lambda expressions forces the use of a static method as a helper for the callback registration. This is kinda hacky. It is unclear to me why the C++-CLI compiler does no permit lambda expressions within standard methods.
The method invoked by the lambda must be marked internal so to not throw MethodAccessException upon invocation. This is sort of make sense as it is not called within the class scope itself. but still, delegates / lambdas with C# don't have that limitation.
What's the standard means of processing input to an AWS Lambda handler function, when the format of the incoming JSON varies depending on the type of trigger?
e.g. I have a Lambda function that gets called when an object is created in an S3 bucket, or when an hourly scheduled event fires. Obviously, the JSON passed to the handler is formatted differently.
Is it acceptable to overload Lambda handler functions, with the input type defined as S3Event for one signature and ScheduledEvent for the other? If not, are developers simply calling JsonConvert.DeserializeObject in try blocks? Or is the standard practice to establish multiple Lambda functions, one for each input type (yuck!)?
You should use one function per event.
Having multiple triggers for one Lambda will just make things way harder, as you'll end up with a bunch of if/else, switch statements or even Factory methods if you want to apply design patterns.
Now think of Lambda functions as small and maintainable. Think of pieces of code that should do one thing and should do it well. By the moment you start having multiple triggers, you kind of end up with a "Lambda Monolith", as it will have way too many responsibilities. Not only that, you strongly couple your Lambda functions with your events, meaning that once a new trigger is added, your Lambda code should change. This is just not scalable after two or three triggers.
Another drawback is that you are bound to using one language only if you architect it like that. For some use cases, Java may be the best option. But for others, it may be Node JS, Python, Go...
Essentially, your functions should be small enough to be easily maintainable and even rewritten if necessary. There's absolutely nothing wrong with creating one function per event, although, apparently, you strongly disapprove it. Think of every Lambda as a separate Microservice, which scales out independently, has its own CI/CD pipeline and its own suite of tests.
Another thing to consider is if you want to limit your Lambda concurrent executions depending on your trigger type. This would be unachievable via the "One-Lambda-Does-It-All" model.
Stick with one Lambda per trigger and you'll sleep better at night.
This is actually possible by doing the following:
Have the Lambda signature take a Stream rather than the Amazon event type, so we can get the raw JSON message.
Read the JSON contents of the stream as a string.
Deserialize the string to a custom type in order to identify the event source.
Use the event source information to deserialize the JSON a second time to the appropriate type for the event source.
For example:
public async Task FunctionHandler(Stream stream, ILambdaContext context)
{
using var streamReader = new StreamReader(stream);
var json = await streamReader.ReadToEndAsync();
var serializationOptions = new JsonSerializationOptions { PropertyNameCaseInsensitive = true };
var awsEvent = JsonSerializer.Deserialize<AwsEvent>(json, serializationOptions);
var eventSource = awsEvent?.Records.Select(e => e.EventSource).SingleOrDefault();
await (eventSource switch
{
"aws:s3" => HandleAsync(Deserialize<S3Event>(json, serializationOptions), context),
"aws:sqs" => HandleAsync(Deserialize<SQSEvent>(json, serializationOptions), context),
_ => throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof (stream), $"Unsupported event source '{eventSource}'."),
});
}
public async Task HandlyAsync(S3Event #event) => ...
public async Task HandleAsync(SQSEvent #event) => ...
public sealed class AwsEvent
{
public List<Record> Records { get; set; }
public sealed class Record
{
public string EventSource { get; set; }
}
}
I have this very basic question about calls to MessageReceivedAsync. I understand this method is called from context.Wait. However, what I want to clarify is how is the function called without passing on any arguments.
The method definition has 2 arguments.
public Task StartAsync(IDialogContext context)
{
context.Wait(MessageReceivedAsync);
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
private async Task MessageReceivedAsync(IDialogContext context, IAwaitable<object> result)
{
var activity = await result as Activity;
}
Rahul,
this is actually a somewhat complicated question. I'll try to explain as best I can and point you to the code you can examine to get a deeper understanding if you desire.
context.Wait(MessageReceivedAsync) is calling the Wait method of the IDialogContext which is defined as..
public static void Wait(this IDialogStack stack, ResumeAfter<IMessageActivity> resume)
As you can see, this is an extension method of IDialogStack. The important thing to see here is the second parameter ResumeAfter. ResumeAfter is a delgate for what to do when the Wait event occurs, which is usually someone typing a new message to your bot.
Ok, now we can look at the definition of the delegate ResumeAfter. It is defined as...
public delegate Task ResumeAfter<in T>(IDialogContext context, IAwaitable<T> result);
and there's your answer. The parameters for MessageReceivedAsync are a result of the delegate ResumeAfter. The values of the parameters are defined by and setup by the bot framework.
I hope this gave you a better understanding of what's happening behind the scenes with a MS bot.
This code is all contained on GitHub in Microsoft's BotBuilder source
The specific code file I'm references is IDialogContext.cs located here.
I want to link async method to a delegate command in prism framework in Xamarin.Forms and my question is how to do it?
Is below solution correct? Is there exist any pitfall? (deadlock, UI slow or freezing, bad practices, ...)
{ // My view model constructor
...
MyCommand = new DelegateCommand(async () => await MyJobAsync());
...
}
private async Task MyJobAsync()
{
... // Some await calls
... // Some UI element changed such as binded Observable collections
}
You can use async void directly. However, a few notes from my experience...
The structure of your code is: start asynchronous operation and then update UI with the results. This implies to me that you would be better served with a NotifyTask<T> kind of approach to asynchronous data binding, not commands. See my async MVVM data binding article for more about the design behind NotifyTask<T> (but note that the latest code has a bugfix and other enhancements).
If you really do need an asynchronous command (which is much more rare), you can use async void directly or build an async command type as I describe in my article on async MVVM commmands. I also have types to support this but the APIs for these are more in flux.
If you do choose to use async void directly:
Consider making your async Task logic public, or at least accessible to your unit tests.
Don't forget to handle exceptions properly. Just like a plain DelegateTask, any exceptions from your delegate must be properly handled.
Just have a look at this link if you're using Prism Library: https://prismlibrary.com/docs/commands/commanding.html#implementing-a-task-based-delegatecommand
In case you want to pass a CommandParameter to DelegateCommand, use in the DelegateCommand variable declaration this syntax
public DelegateCommand<object> MyCommand { get; set; }
In the constructor of the ViewModel initialize it this way:
MyCommand = new DelegateCommand<object>(HandleTap);
where HandleTap is declared as
private async void HandleTap(object param)
Hope it helps.
As has already been mentioned the way to handle async code with delegate command is to use async void. There has been a lot of discussion on this, far beyond just Prism or Xamarin Forms. The bottom line is that ICommand that both the Xamarin Forms Command and Prism DelegateCommand are limited by ICommand's void Execute(object obj). If you'd like to get more information on this I would encourage you to read the blog by Brian Lagunas explaining why DelegateCommand.FromAsync handler is obsolete.
Generally most concerns are handled very easily by updating the code. For example. I often hear complaints about Exceptions as "the reason" why FromAsync was necessary, only to see in their code they never had a try catch. Because async void is fire and forget, another complaint I've heard is that a command could execute twice. That also is easily fixed with DelegateCommands ObservesProperty and ObservesCanExecute.
I think the two main problems when calling an asynchronous method from one that executes synchronously (ICommand.Execute) are 1) denying to execute again while previous call is still running 2) handling of exceptions. Both can be tackled with an implementation like the following (prototype). This would be an async replacement for the DelegateCommand.
public sealed class AsyncDelegateCommand : ICommand
{
private readonly Func<object, Task> func;
private readonly Action<Exception> faultHandlerAction;
private int callRunning = 0;
// Pass in the async delegate (which takes an object parameter and returns a Task)
// and a delegate which handles exceptions
public AsyncDelegateCommand(Func<object, Task> func, Action<Exception> faultHandlerAction)
{
this.func = func;
this.faultHandlerAction = faultHandlerAction;
}
public bool CanExecute(object parameter)
{
return callRunning == 0;
}
public void Execute(object parameter)
{
// Replace value of callRunning with 1 if 0, otherwise return - (if already 1).
// This ensures that there is only one running call at a time.
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref callRunning, 1, 0) == 1)
{
return;
}
OnCanExecuteChanged();
func(parameter).ContinueWith((task, _) => ExecuteFinished(task), null, TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously);
}
private void ExecuteFinished(Task task)
{
// Replace value of callRunning with 0
Interlocked.Exchange(ref callRunning, 0);
// Call error handling if task has faulted
if (task.IsFaulted)
{
faultHandlerAction(task.Exception);
}
OnCanExecuteChanged();
}
public event EventHandler CanExecuteChanged;
private void OnCanExecuteChanged()
{
// Raising this event tells for example a button to display itself as "grayed out" while async operation is still running
var handler = CanExecuteChanged;
if (handler != null) handler(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
async void
I personally would avoid "async void" at all cost. It is impossible to know from the outside when the operation has finished and error handling becomes tricky. In regards to latter, for instance writing an "async Task" method which is called from an "async void" method almost needs to be aware of how its failing Task is propagated:
public async Task SomeLogic()
{
var success = await SomeFurtherLogic();
if (!success)
{
throw new DomainException(..); // Normal thing to do
}
}
And then someone writing on a different day:
public async void CommandHandler()
{
await SomeLogic(); // Calling a method. Normal thing to do but can lead to an unobserved Task exception
}
Is UI thread running DelegateCommand and background threads running await expression?
Yes, the UI thread runs the DelegateCommand. In case of an async one, it runs until the first await statement, and then resumes his regular UI thread work. If the awaiter is configured to capture the synchronization context (that is, you do not use .ConfigureAwait(false)) the UI thread will continue to run the DelegateCommand after the await.
Is UI thread running DelegateCommand and background threads running await expression?
Whether the "await expression" runs on a background thread, foreground thread, a threadpool thread or whatever depends on the api you call. For example, you can push cpu-bound work to the threadpool using Task.Run or you can wait for an i/o-operation without using any thread at all with methods like Stream.ReadAsync
public ICommand MyCommand{get;set;}
//constructor
public ctor()
{
MyCommand = new Xamarin.Forms.Command(CmdDoTheJob);
}
public async void DoTheJob()
{
await TheMethod();
}
public DelegateCommand MyCommand => new DelegateCommand(MyMethod);
private async void MyMethod()
{
}
There are no pitfalls. A void return type in async method was created especially for delegates. If you want to change something, that has reflected on UI, insert relevant code in this block:
Device.BeginOnMainThread(()=>
{
your code;
});
Actually, ICommand and DelegateCommand pretty similar, so an above answer is quite right.