Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

How to call asynchronous method from synchronous method in C#?

Tags:

c#

async-await

I have a public async void Foo() method that I want to call from synchronous method. So far all I have seen from MSDN documentation is calling async methods via async methods, but my whole program is not built with async methods.

Is this even possible?

Here's one example of calling these methods from an asynchronous method:
Walkthrough: Accessing the Web by Using Async and Await (C# and Visual Basic)

Now I'm looking into calling these async methods from sync methods.

like image 719
Tower Avatar asked Feb 18 '12 17:02

Tower


People also ask

How do you call asynchronous method from synchronous method in C?

Solution C In that case, you could start the async method on the thread pool: var task = Task. Run(async () => await MyAsyncMethod()); var result = task. WaitAndUnwrapException();

Can we call synchronous method from asynchronous method?

The simplest way to execute a method asynchronously is to start executing the method by calling the delegate's BeginInvoke method, do some work on the main thread, and then call the delegate's EndInvoke method. EndInvoke might block the calling thread because it does not return until the asynchronous call completes.

Can we call asynchronous methods from another asynchronous method?

There's no rule that says that "asynchronous cannot call asynchronous". There are specific rules in place, such as "future cannot call future". A Queueable can call another Queueable, a Batchable can call another Batchable in the finish method, and Scheduleable methods can call Batchable and Queueable methods.


2 Answers

Adding a solution that finally solved my problem, hopefully saves somebody's time.

Firstly read a couple articles of Stephen Cleary:

  • Async and Await
  • Don't Block on Async Code

From the "two best practices" in "Don't Block on Async Code", the first one didn't work for me and the second one wasn't applicable (basically if I can use await, I do!).

So here is my workaround: wrap the call inside a Task.Run<>(async () => await FunctionAsync()); and hopefully no deadlock anymore.

Here is my code:

public class LogReader {     ILogger _logger;      public LogReader(ILogger logger)     {         _logger = logger;     }      public LogEntity GetLog()     {         Task<LogEntity> task = Task.Run<LogEntity>(async () => await GetLogAsync());         return task.Result;     }      public async Task<LogEntity> GetLogAsync()     {         var result = await _logger.GetAsync();         // more code here...         return result as LogEntity;     } } 
like image 23
Tohid Avatar answered Oct 07 '22 00:10

Tohid


Asynchronous programming does "grow" through the code base. It has been compared to a zombie virus. The best solution is to allow it to grow, but sometimes that's not possible.

I have written a few types in my Nito.AsyncEx library for dealing with a partially-asynchronous code base. There's no solution that works in every situation, though.

Solution A

If you have a simple asynchronous method that doesn't need to synchronize back to its context, then you can use Task.WaitAndUnwrapException:

var task = MyAsyncMethod(); var result = task.WaitAndUnwrapException(); 

You do not want to use Task.Wait or Task.Result because they wrap exceptions in AggregateException.

This solution is only appropriate if MyAsyncMethod does not synchronize back to its context. In other words, every await in MyAsyncMethod should end with ConfigureAwait(false). This means it can't update any UI elements or access the ASP.NET request context.

Solution B

If MyAsyncMethod does need to synchronize back to its context, then you may be able to use AsyncContext.RunTask to provide a nested context:

var result = AsyncContext.RunTask(MyAsyncMethod).Result; 

*Update 4/14/2014: In more recent versions of the library the API is as follows:

var result = AsyncContext.Run(MyAsyncMethod); 

(It's OK to use Task.Result in this example because RunTask will propagate Task exceptions).

The reason you may need AsyncContext.RunTask instead of Task.WaitAndUnwrapException is because of a rather subtle deadlock possibility that happens on WinForms/WPF/SL/ASP.NET:

  1. A synchronous method calls an async method, obtaining a Task.
  2. The synchronous method does a blocking wait on the Task.
  3. The async method uses await without ConfigureAwait.
  4. The Task cannot complete in this situation because it only completes when the async method is finished; the async method cannot complete because it is attempting to schedule its continuation to the SynchronizationContext, and WinForms/WPF/SL/ASP.NET will not allow the continuation to run because the synchronous method is already running in that context.

This is one reason why it's a good idea to use ConfigureAwait(false) within every async method as much as possible.

Solution C

AsyncContext.RunTask won't work in every scenario. For example, if the async method awaits something that requires a UI event to complete, then you'll deadlock even with the nested context. In that case, you could start the async method on the thread pool:

var task = Task.Run(async () => await MyAsyncMethod()); var result = task.WaitAndUnwrapException(); 

However, this solution requires a MyAsyncMethod that will work in the thread pool context. So it can't update UI elements or access the ASP.NET request context. And in that case, you may as well add ConfigureAwait(false) to its await statements, and use solution A.

Update, 2019-05-01: The current "least-worst practices" are in an MSDN article here.

like image 149
Stephen Cleary Avatar answered Oct 06 '22 23:10

Stephen Cleary