Is there a easy way to perform a method after a given delay like in iOS out of the box?
On iPhone I would do this:
[self performSelector:#selector(connectSensor) withObject:nil afterDelay:2.5];
It will then schedule the method connectSensor on the main thread (UI thread) to be executed after 2,5 seconds. And because it is automatically scheduled on the main thread, you don't have to worry about cross thread issues. (There is also a performSelectorOnBackground version)
So how would I do this properly in WP7?
Currently I'm accomplishing this with a timer, but I'm not sure if this is a good solution.
private Timer timer;
private void DoSomethingAfterDaly()
{
// ... do something here
timer = new Timer( (o) => Deployment.Current.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(() => NavigationService.GoBack()), null, 2500, Timeout.Infinite);
}
How could this be encapsulated into an extension method so I can just call this.Perform(MyMethod, null, 2500); ?
You can use a BackgroundWorker like so:
private void Perform(Action myMethod, int delayInMilliseconds)
{
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += (s, e) => Thread.Sleep(delayInMilliseconds);
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (s, e) => myMethod.Invoke();
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
The call into this method would look like this:
this.Perform(() => MyMethod(), 2500);
The background worker will run the sleep on a thread off of the UI thread so your application is free to do other things while the delay is occurring.
You can use the Reactive Extensions for WP7 to observe on a timer:
Observable
.Timer(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(2500))
.SubscribeOnDispatcher()
.Subscribe(_ =>
{
NavigationService.GoBack();
});
Given the brevity of this code, I don't think you'd gain much by creating an extension method for it :) For more information about the Reactive Extensions for WP7, take a look at this MSDN page
.
Related
When the "To" field losew the focus from the compose window I need to perform a long task which takes some time to be completed. Now UI is getting blocked because I do it in the main UI thread so I would like to make it non-blocking. I have thought in using the async/await commands from C# as below:
public async void PerformLongTask()
{
bool result = await Task.Run(() =>
{
// Long task here
});
}
I would like to know if this is the correct way to do an asynchronous task without blocking the main UI thread in Outlook or is there some other better way to do it? If so, how? When you need to perform such long task and you need to be non-blocking, how do you usually do it?
async/await or tasks are fine in Outlook as long as you don't touch any Outlook Object Model objects on that secondary thread.
If you need to touch OOM objects, do so by switching to the main thread using, for example, the Dispatcher object - retrieve it on the main thread from Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher, then using Dispatcher.Invoke/InvokeAsync whenever you need to do anything with Outlook objects. Since thread switching is expensive, try to batch multiple OOM hits into a single Invoke.
public async void PerformLongTask()
{
var dispatcher = Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher;
bool result = await Task.Run(() =>
{
// Long task here
//now use OOM on the main thread
dispatcher.Invoke(() =>
{
MessageBox.Show(Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.Version);
});
});
}
After reading pretty much every question on Stack Overflow and Microsoft's documentation about NetworkStream, I dont understand what is wrong with my code.
The problem I see is that my method GetDataAsync() hangs very often. I call this method from Init Method like so:
public MyView(string id)
{
InitializeComponent();
MyViewModel myViewModel = session.Resolve<MyViewModel>(); //Autofac
myiewModel.Init(id);
BindingContext = myViewModel;
}
Above, my View does its initialization, then resolves MyViewModel from Autofac DiC and then calls MyViewModel Init() method to do some additional setup on the VM.
The Init method then calls my Async method GetDataAsync which return a IList like so:
public void Init()
{
// call this Async method to populate a ListView
foreach (var model in GetDataAsync("111").Result)
{
// The List<MyModel> returned by the GetDataAsync is then
// used to load ListView's ObservableCollection<MyModel>
// This ObservableCollection is data-bound to a ListView in
// this View. So, the ListView shows its data once the View
// displays.
}
}
, and here is my GetDataAsync() method including my comments:
public override async Task<IList<MyModel>> GetDataAsync(string id)
{
var timeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(20);
try
{
byte[] messageBytes = GetMessageBytes(Id);
using (var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(timeout))
using (TcpClient client = new TcpClient(Ip, Port))
using (NetworkStream stream = client.GetStream())
{
await stream.WriteAsync(messageBytes, 0, messageBytes.Length, cts.Token);
await stream.FlushAsync(cts.Token);
byte[] buffer = new byte[1024];
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
int bytesRead = 0;
await Task.Delay(500);
while (stream.DataAvailable) // need to Delay to wait for data to be available
{
bytesRead = await stream.ReadAsync(buffer, 0, buffer.Length, cts.Token);
builder.AppendFormat("{0}", Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buffer, 0, bytesRead));
}
string msg = buffer.ToString();
}
return ParseMessageIntoList(msg); // parses message into IList<MyModel>
}
catch (OperationCanceledException oce)
{
return await Task.FromResult<IList<RoomGuestModel>>(new List<RoomGuestModel>());
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return await Task.FromResult<IList<RoomGuestModel>>(new List<RoomGuestModel>());
}
}
I would expect that a ReadAsync or WriteAsync either complete successfully, throw some exception, or get cancelled after 10 seconds in which case I would catch OperationCanceledException.
However, it just hangs endlessly when I call method above. If I am debugging and have some breakpoints in the code above, I will be able to go through the method entirely but if I call it 2nd time, app just hangs forever.
I am new to Tasks and Async programming, so I am also not sure I do my cancellations and exception handling properly here?
UPDATE AND FIX
I figured out how to fix the deadlock issue. In hope this will help others sho might run into the same issue, I'll first explain it. The articles that helped me a lot are:
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/pfxteam/await-and-ui-and-deadlocks-oh-my/ by Stephen Taub
https://montemagno.com/c-sharp-developers-stop-calling-dot-result/ by James Montemagno
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/jj991977.aspx by StephenCleary
https://blog.xamarin.com/getting-started-with-async-await/ by Jon Goldberger
#StephenCleary was great help understanding the issue. Calling Result or Wait (above, I call Result when calling GetDataAsync) will lead to dead-lock.
The context thread (UI in this case) is now waiting for GetDataAsync to complete, but GetDataAsync captures the current context-thread (UI thread), so it can resume on it once it gets data from TCP. But since this context-thread is now blocked by call to Result, it cannot resume.
The end result is that it looks like call to GetDataAsync has deadlocked but in reality, it is call to Result that deadlocked.
After reading tons of articles from #StephenTaub, #StephenCleary, #JamesMontemagno, #JoeGoldenberger (thank you all), I started getting understanding of the issue (I am new to TAP/async/await).
Then I discovered continuations in Tasks and how to use them to resolve the issue (thanks to Stephen Taub's article above).
So, instead of calling it like:
IList<MyModel> models = GetDataAsync("111").Result;
foeach(var model in models)
{
MyModelsObservableCollection.Add(model);
}
, I call it with continuation like this:
GetDataAsync(id)
.ContinueWith((antecedant) =>
{
foreach(var model in antecedant.Result)
{
MyModelsObservableCollection.Add(model);
}
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion)
.ContinueWith((antecedant) =>
{
var error = antecedant.Exception.Flatten();
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
This seam to have fixed my deadlocking issue and now my list will load fine even though it is loaded from the constructor.
So, this seam to work just fine. But #JoeGoldenberger also suggests another solution in his article https://blog.xamarin.com/getting-started-with-async-await/ which is to use Task.Run(async()=>{...}); and inside that await GetDataAsync and load ObservableCollection. So, I gave that a try as well and that is not blocking either, so working great:
Task.Run(async() =>
{
IList<MyModel> models = await GetDataAsync(id);
foreach (var model in models)
{
MyModelsObservableCollection.Add(model);
}
});
So, it looks like either of these 2 will remove deadlock just fine. And since above my Init method is called from a c-tor; therefore, I cannot make it Async and await on this, using one of the 2 methods described above resolves my problem. I dont know which one is better but in my tests, they do work.
Your problem is most likely due to GetDataAsync("111").Result. You shouldn't block on async code.
This can cause deadocks. E.g., if you're on a UI thread, the UI thread will start GetDataAsync and run it until it hits an await. At this point, GetDataAsync returns an incomplete task, and the .Result call blocks the UI thread until that task is completed.
Eventually, the inner async call completes and GetDataAsync is ready to resume executing after its await. By default, await captures its context and resumes on that context. Which in this example is the UI thread. Which is blocked since it called Result. So, the UI thread is waiting for GetDataAsync to complete, and GetDataAsync is waiting for the UI thread so it can complete: deadlock.
The proper solution is to go async all the way; replace .Result with await, and make the necessary changes to other code for that to happen.
As stated in my update, going async all the way by providing an async lambda like below resolved the issue for me
Task.Run(async() =>
{
IList<MyModel> models = await GetDataAsync(id);
foreach (var model in models)
{
MyModelsObservableCollection.Add(model);
}
});
Loading asynchronously an observable collection in a ctor this way (in my case, ctor calls Init which then uses this Task.Run) solves problem
My code looks like this:
public void Init() {
if (AS.pti == PTI.UserInput)
{
AS.runCardTimer = false;
}
else
{
AS.runCardTimer = true;
Device.BeginInvokeOnMainThread(() => showCards().ContinueWith((arg) => { }));
}
}
The Init method is called from the constructor. Can someone please explain to me why the developer might have added the Device.BeginInvokeOnMainThread() instead of just calling the method showCards?
Also what does the ContinueWith((arg)) do and why would that be included?
The class where this Init() method is might be created on a background thread. I'm assuming showCards() are updating some kind of UI. UI can only be updated on the UI/Main thread. Device.BeginInvokeOnMainThread() ensures that the code inside the lambda is executed on the main thread.
ContinueWith() is a method which can be found on Task. If showCards() returns a task, ContinueWith() makes sure the task will complete before exiting the lambda.
UI actions must be performed on UI thread (different name for main thread). If you try to perform UI changes from non main thread, your application will crash. I think developer wanted to make sure it will work as intended.
The simple answer is: Background thread cannot modify UI elements because most UI operations in iOS and Android are not thread-safe; therefore, you need to invoke UI thread to execute the code that modifies UI such MyLabel.Text="New Text".
The detailed answer can be found in Xamarin document:
For iOS:
IOSPlatformServices.BeginInvokeOnMainThread() Method simply calls NSRunLoop.Main.BeginInvokeOnMainThread
public void BeginInvokeOnMainThread(Action action)
{
NSRunLoop.Main.BeginInvokeOnMainThread(action.Invoke);
}
https://developer.xamarin.com/api/member/Foundation.NSObject.BeginInvokeOnMainThread/p/ObjCRuntime.Selector/Foundation.NSObject/
You use this method from a thread to invoke the code in the specified object that is exposed with the specified selector in the UI thread. This is required for most operations that affect UIKit or AppKit as neither one of those APIs is thread safe.
The code is executed when the main thread goes back to its main loop for processing events.
For Android:
Many People think on Xamarin.Android BeginInvokeOnMainThread() method use Activity.runOnUiThread(), BUT this is NOT the case, and there is a difference between using runOnUiThread() and Handler.Post():
public final void runOnUiThread(Runnable action) {
if (Thread.currentThread() != mUiThread) {
mHandler.post(action);//<-- post message delays action until UI thread is scheduled to handle messages
} else {
action.run();//<--action is executed immediately if current running thread is UI thread.
}
}
The actual implementation of Xamarin.Android BeginInvokeOnMainThread() method can be found in AndroidPlatformServices.cs class
public void BeginInvokeOnMainThread(Action action)
{
if (s_handler == null || s_handler.Looper != Looper.MainLooper)
{
s_handler = new Handler(Looper.MainLooper);
}
s_handler.Post(action);
}
https://developer.android.com/reference/android/os/Handler.html#post(java.lang.Runnable)
As you can see, you action code is not executed immediately by Handler.Post(action). It is added to the Looper's message queue, and is handled when the UI thread's scheduled to handle its message.
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.
I'm making a simple matching game and would like a count down timer. Is there a way to set off an event every dt? I found some code using threads, but seems a lot more complicated for what I need.
Something like this should work:
TimerTask countdown = new TimerTask() {
public void run() {
synchronized(UiApplication.getEventLock()) {
//do the stuff to the UI, ie change the counter
}
}
};
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(countdown, 0, dt);
I didn't test this, so I may have a typo in there, but this is the basic idea. Take a look at the TimerTask and Timer documentation for more info.