Asynchronously wait for Task<T> to complete with timeout
Asked Answered
M

19

540

I want to wait for a Task<T> to complete with some special rules: If it hasn't completed after X milliseconds, I want to display a message to the user. And if it hasn't completed after Y milliseconds, I want to automatically request cancellation.

I can use Task.ContinueWith to asynchronously wait for the task to complete (i.e. schedule an action to be executed when the task is complete), but that doesn't allow to specify a timeout. I can use Task.Wait to synchronously wait for the task to complete with a timeout, but that blocks my thread. How can I asynchronously wait for the task to complete with a timeout?

Mummery answered 21/11, 2010 at 14:29 Comment(6)
You are right. I am surprised it does not provide for timeout. Maybe in .NET 5.0... Of course we can build the timeout into the task itself but that is no good, such things must come free.Hyperpyrexia
While it would still require logic for the two-tier timeout you describe, .NET 4.5 does indeed offer a simple method for creating a timeout-based CancellationTokenSource. Two overloads to the constructor are available, one taking a integer millisecond delay and one taking a TimeSpan delay.Arvell
The complete simple lib source here: stackoverflow.com/questions/11831844/…Gompers
any final solution with full source code working ? maybe more complex sample for notify errors in each thread and after WaitAll shows a summary ?Zillah
To add to what @Arvell suggested it can also be achieved using CancellationTokenSource.CancelAfter(<timespan or millisecs>)Davide
Vijay Nirmal's answer, featuring the new .NET 6 Task.WaitAsync API, should be the accepted one IMHO.Elenore
S
751

How about this:

int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) == task) {
    // task completed within timeout
} else { 
    // timeout logic
}

And here's a great blog post "Crafting a Task.TimeoutAfter Method" (from MS Parallel Library team) with more info on this sort of thing.

Addition: at the request of a comment on my answer, here is an expanded solution that includes cancellation handling. Note that passing cancellation to the task and the timer means that there are multiple ways cancellation can be experienced in your code, and you should be sure to test for and be confident you properly handle all of them. Don't leave to chance various combinations and hope your computer does the right thing at runtime.

int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync(cancellationToken);
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, cancellationToken)) == task)
{
    // Task completed within timeout.
    // Consider that the task may have faulted or been canceled.
    // We re-await the task so that any exceptions/cancellation is rethrown.
    await task;

}
else
{
    // timeout/cancellation logic
}
Slinkman answered 25/6, 2012 at 14:18 Comment(16)
It should be mentioned that even though Task.Delay can complete before long running task, allowing you to handle a timeout scenario, this does NOT cancel the long running task itself; WhenAny simply lets you know that one of the tasks passed to it has completed. You will have to implement a CancellationToken and cancel the long running task yourself.Jenevajeni
It may also be noted that the Task.Delay task is backed by a system timer which will continue to be tracked until the timeout expires regardless of how long SomeOperationAsync takes. So if this overall code snippet executes a lot in a tight loop, you're consuming system resources for timers until they all timeout. The way to fix that would be to have a CancellationToken that you pass to Task.Delay(timeout, cancellationToken) that you cancel when SomeOperationAsync completes to release the timer resource.Slinkman
The cancellation code is doing waaaay too much work. Try this: int timeout = 1000; var cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource(timeout); var cancellationToken = tokenSource.Token; var task = SomeOperationAsync(cancellationToken); try { await task; // Add code here for the successful completion } catch (OperationCancelledException) { // Add code here for timeout case }Amalea
Regardless of whether my suggestion about using the timeout built into the tokens helps or not, don't you have a problem in the current solution with OperationCancelledException being thrown if the task is cancelled such that the cancellation code never executes?Amalea
@Amalea if you mean the async method that is called, passing in the CancellationToken is canceled, then yes an OperationCanceledException is thrown and not caught by my code. But in that event, I'm expecting the caller who provided the CancellationToken in the first place to be prepared to catch that.Slinkman
It's worth noting that this solution (while great) requires .Net 4.5 or greater... Those of us using .Net 4.0 are SOL.Foreleg
This is great but the task doesn't return a value. What are you supposed to do when you need to return a value?Munificent
Once you're in the no timeout branch of the code, just await the original (now completed) task to assign the result to a variable.Slinkman
Just to note there are a couple of variants depending on whether the work task is already started and whether or you want to cancel the work if the timeout occurs. I have added a solution below reflecting this.Sexual
Can you please elaborate on "any exceptions/cancellation is rethrown"? if the task has somehow completed (success or cancelled or failed) how would any error be thrown afterwards??Outcry
@Outcry by awaiting the Task, any exception stored by the task is rethrown at that point. This gives you a chance to catch OperationCanceledException (if canceled) or any other exception (if faulted).Slinkman
Hmm... any reason why this wouldn't work in Xamarin iOS? Never seems to "timeout".Ritualist
Why not just use: task.Wait(timeout) directly?Ese
The blog post was moved. The new location is devblogs.microsoft.com/pfxteam/…Barbee
@TomexOu: the question was how to asynchronously await a Task's completion. Task.Wait(timeout) would synchronously block instead of asynchronously await.Slinkman
Regarding the version on top that uses a Task.Delay without passing a cancellation token, most likely it will generate a warning on .NET 8.Elenore
R
328

Here's a extension method version that incorporates cancellation of the timeout when the original task completes as suggested by Andrew Arnott in a comment to his answer.

public static async Task<TResult> TimeoutAfter<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout) {

    using (var timeoutCancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource()) {

        var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Token));
        if (completedTask == task) {
            timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Cancel();
            return await task;  // Very important in order to propagate exceptions
        } else {
            throw new TimeoutException("The operation has timed out.");
        }
    }
}
Rooney answered 27/2, 2014 at 19:54 Comment(12)
I'm late to the party, but doesn't the await in all these solutions cause it to block, thus making the asynchronous call synced?Woke
@Woke No it doesn't, in fact using await with Task.WhenAny is what allows it not to block (control is returned to the caller until the awaited task has completed). Perhaps you're thinking of something like Tomas Petricek's solution https://mcmap.net/q/17087/-asynchronously-wait-for-task-lt-t-gt-to-complete-with-timeout using Task.WaitAny which does block until one of the tasks has completed.Rooney
I got a chance to try this finally, and you're right! I'm a little bit confused though - I'm rusty on my Tasks stuff. Why does this work? TimeoutAfter has an await on Task.WhenAny; shouldn't it block until either one of those completes, even when you do not await the TimeoutAfter?Woke
@Woke I don't think I could explain it well in a comment. You should consider opening a new question about it.Rooney
Give this man some votes. Elegant solution. And if you're call doesn't have a return type make sure you just remove the TResult.Dalesman
in this answer, the task would be executed twice. First to check whether it completes in specified timeout period and if it completes, then it is again executed to return the result. What you can do is that instead of return await task in the if, just return the completedTask.Flax
@It'satrap Awaiting a task twice simply returns the result on the second await. It doesn't execute twice. You could say that it equals task.Result when executed twice.Opiumism
Will the original task (task) still continue to run in the event of a timeout?Franchescafranchise
Minor improvement opportunity: TimeoutException has a suitable default message. Overriding it with "The operation has timed out." adds no value and actually causes some confusion by implying there's a reason to override it.Camden
Just curious, on the happy path where no timeout occurs, wouldn't this code result in an UnobservedTaskException if the Task.Delay is cancelled (throwing a OperationCanceledException) ?Voucher
To follow up my last comment, I've just tested this and a cancelled Task.Delay does not raise a TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException eventVoucher
@jag, yes, the original task will continue to run. There are other answers below (including mine), that cancel the original task on timeout.Gaylordgaylussac
I
103

From .Net 6 (Preview 7) or later, there is a new build-in method Task.WaitAsync to achieve this.

// Using TimeSpan
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));

// Using CancellationToken
await myTask.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);

// Using both TimeSpan and CancellationToken
await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken);

If the task isn't finished before the TimeSpan or CancellationToken then it throws TimeoutException or TaskCanceledException respectively

try
{
    await myTask.WaitAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10), cancellationToken);

}
catch (TaskCanceledException)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Task didn't get finished before the `CancellationToken`");
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Task didn't get finished before the `TimeSpan`");
}
Imprimis answered 31/8, 2021 at 12:2 Comment(1)
Great! I feel this way is simpler and better to use.Kaffraria
P
51

You can use Task.WaitAny to wait the first of multiple tasks.

You could create two additional tasks (that complete after the specified timeouts) and then use WaitAny to wait for whichever completes first. If the task that completed first is your "work" task, then you're done. If the task that completed first is a timeout task, then you can react to the timeout (e.g. request cancellation).

Passion answered 21/11, 2010 at 15:15 Comment(4)
I've seen this technique used by an MVP I really respect, it seems much cleaner to me than the accepted answer. Perhaps an example would help get more votes! I'd volunteer to do it except I don't have enough Task experience to be confident it would be helpful :)Wellinformed
one thread would be blocked - but if u r ok with that then no problem. The solution I took was the one below, since no threads are blocked. I read the blog post which was really good.Hierocracy
@Hierocracy you mention you took the solution below .... which is that? based on SO ordering?Feliciafeliciano
and what if I don't want slower task to be cancelled? I want to handle it when it finishes but return from current method..Oatmeal
I
30

This is a slightly enhanced version of previous answers.

  • In addition to Lawrence's answer, it cancels the original task when timeout occurs.
  • In addtion to sjb's answer variants 2 and 3, you can provide CancellationToken for the original task, and when timeout occurs, you get TimeoutException instead of OperationCanceledException.
async Task<TResult> CancelAfterAsync<TResult>(
    Func<CancellationToken, Task<TResult>> startTask,
    TimeSpan timeout, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
    using (var timeoutCancellation = new CancellationTokenSource())
    using (var combinedCancellation = CancellationTokenSource
        .CreateLinkedTokenSource(cancellationToken, timeoutCancellation.Token))
    {
        var originalTask = startTask(combinedCancellation.Token);
        var delayTask = Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellation.Token);
        var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(originalTask, delayTask);
        // Cancel timeout to stop either task:
        // - Either the original task completed, so we need to cancel the delay task.
        // - Or the timeout expired, so we need to cancel the original task.
        // Canceling will not affect a task, that is already completed.
        timeoutCancellation.Cancel();
        if (completedTask == originalTask)
        {
            // original task completed
            return await originalTask;
        }
        else
        {
            // timeout
            throw new TimeoutException();
        }
    }
}

Usage

InnerCallAsync may take a long time to complete. CallAsync wraps it with a timeout.

async Task<int> CallAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
    var timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1);
    int result = await CancelAfterAsync(ct => InnerCallAsync(ct), timeout,
        cancellationToken);
    return result;
}

async Task<int> InnerCallAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
    return 42;
}
Incoming answered 18/9, 2019 at 14:0 Comment(4)
Thanks for the solution! Seems like you should pass timeoutCancellation into delayTask. Currently, if you fire cancellation, CancelAfterAsync may throw TimeoutException instead of TaskCanceledException, cause delayTask may finished first.Elvera
@AxelUser, you're right. It took me an hour with bunch of unit tests to understand what was happening :) I assumed that when both tasks given to WhenAny are canceled by the same token, WhenAny will return the first task. That assumption was wrong. I've edited the answer. Thanks!Gaylordgaylussac
@JosefBláha Thanks very much! I'm still slowly wrapping my head around lambda style syntax, that would not have occurred to me - that the token is passed in to the task in the body of CancelAfterAsync, by passing in the lambda function. Nifty!Stratocumulus
This is pretty useful! Do you have this available as a NuGet package at all? It'd be useful to be able to pull it in as a NuGet package that has unit tests, rather than having to copy-paste it.Inheritance
J
26

Using Stephen Cleary's excellent AsyncEx library, you can do:

TimeSpan timeout = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10);

using (var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(timeout))
{
    await myTask.WaitAsync(cts.Token);
}

TaskCanceledException will be thrown in the event of a timeout.

Jones answered 25/9, 2017 at 10:5 Comment(1)
This is now built in to .Net 6! learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/…Pinkie
U
18

Here is a fully worked example based on the top voted answer, which is:

int timeout = 1000;
var task = SomeOperationAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) == task) {
    // task completed within timeout
} else { 
    // timeout logic
}

The main advantage of the implementation in this answer is that generics have been added, so the function (or task) can return a value. This means that any existing function can be wrapped in a timeout function, e.g.:

Before:

int x = MyFunc();

After:

// Throws a TimeoutException if MyFunc takes more than 1 second
int x = TimeoutAfter(MyFunc, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));

This code requires .NET 4.5.

using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

namespace TaskTimeout
{
    public static class Program
    {
        /// <summary>
        ///     Demo of how to wrap any function in a timeout.
        /// </summary>
        private static void Main(string[] args)
        {

            // Version without timeout.
            int a = MyFunc();
            Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", a);
            // Version with timeout.
            int b = TimeoutAfter(() => { return MyFunc(); },TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
            Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", b);
            // Version with timeout (short version that uses method groups). 
            int c = TimeoutAfter(MyFunc, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
            Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", c);

            // Version that lets you see what happens when a timeout occurs.
            try
            {               
                int d = TimeoutAfter(
                    () =>
                    {
                        Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(123));
                        return 42;
                    },
                    TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
                Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", d);
            }
            catch (TimeoutException e)
            {
                Console.Write("Exception: {0}\n", e.Message);
            }

            // Version that works on tasks.
            var task = Task.Run(() =>
            {
                Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1));
                return 42;
            });

            // To use async/await, add "await" and remove "GetAwaiter().GetResult()".
            var result = task.TimeoutAfterAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2)).
                           GetAwaiter().GetResult();

            Console.Write("Result: {0}\n", result);

            Console.Write("[any key to exit]");
            Console.ReadKey();
        }

        public static int MyFunc()
        {
            return 42;
        }

        public static TResult TimeoutAfter<TResult>(
            this Func<TResult> func, TimeSpan timeout)
        {
            var task = Task.Run(func);
            return TimeoutAfterAsync(task, timeout).GetAwaiter().GetResult();
        }

        private static async Task<TResult> TimeoutAfterAsync<TResult>(
            this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout)
        {
            var result = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout));
            if (result == task)
            {
                // Task completed within timeout.
                return task.GetAwaiter().GetResult();
            }
            else
            {
                // Task timed out.
                throw new TimeoutException();
            }
        }
    }
}

Caveats

Having given this answer, its generally not a good practice to have exceptions thrown in your code during normal operation, unless you absolutely have to:

  • Each time an exception is thrown, its an extremely heavyweight operation,
  • Exceptions can slow your code down by a factor of 100 or more if the exceptions are in a tight loop.

Only use this code if you absolutely cannot alter the function you are calling so it times out after a specific TimeSpan.

This answer is really only applicable when dealing with 3rd party library libraries that you simply cannot refactor to include a timeout parameter.

How to write robust code

If you want to write robust code, the general rule is this:

Every single operation that could potentially block indefinitely, must have a timeout.

If you do not observe this rule, your code will eventually hit an operation that fails for some reason, then it will block indefinitely, and your app has just permanently hung.

If there was a reasonable timeout after some time, then your app would hang for some extreme amount of time (e.g. 30 seconds) then it would either display an error and continue on its merry way, or retry.

Undine answered 18/7, 2014 at 14:8 Comment(0)
H
17

What about something like this?

    const int x = 3000;
    const int y = 1000;

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        // Your scheduler
        TaskScheduler scheduler = TaskScheduler.Default;

        Task nonblockingTask = new Task(() =>
            {
                CancellationTokenSource source = new CancellationTokenSource();

                Task t1 = new Task(() =>
                    {
                        while (true)
                        {
                            // Do something
                            if (source.IsCancellationRequested)
                                break;
                        }
                    }, source.Token);

                t1.Start(scheduler);

                // Wait for task 1
                bool firstTimeout = t1.Wait(x);

                if (!firstTimeout)
                {
                    // If it hasn't finished at first timeout display message
                    Console.WriteLine("Message to user: the operation hasn't completed yet.");

                    bool secondTimeout = t1.Wait(y);

                    if (!secondTimeout)
                    {
                        source.Cancel();
                        Console.WriteLine("Operation stopped!");
                    }
                }
            });

        nonblockingTask.Start();
        Console.WriteLine("Do whatever you want...");
        Console.ReadLine();
    }

You can use the Task.Wait option without blocking main thread using another Task.

Hagride answered 21/11, 2010 at 14:39 Comment(1)
In fact in this example you are not waiting inside t1 but on an upper task. I'll try to make a more detailed example.Hagride
L
9

Use a Timer to handle the message and automatic cancellation. When the Task completes, call Dispose on the timers so that they will never fire. Here is an example; change taskDelay to 500, 1500, or 2500 to see the different cases:

using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
    class Program
    {
        private static Task CreateTaskWithTimeout(
            int xDelay, int yDelay, int taskDelay)
        {
            var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
            var token = cts.Token;
            var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
            {
                // Do some work, but fail if cancellation was requested
                token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(taskDelay);
                token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
                Console.WriteLine("Task complete");
            });
            var messageTimer = new Timer(state =>
            {
                // Display message at first timeout
                Console.WriteLine("X milliseconds elapsed");
            }, null, xDelay, -1);
            var cancelTimer = new Timer(state =>
            {
                // Display message and cancel task at second timeout
                Console.WriteLine("Y milliseconds elapsed");
                cts.Cancel();
            }
                , null, yDelay, -1);
            task.ContinueWith(t =>
            {
                // Dispose the timers when the task completes
                // This will prevent the message from being displayed
                // if the task completes before the timeout
                messageTimer.Dispose();
                cancelTimer.Dispose();
            });
            return task;
        }

        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            var task = CreateTaskWithTimeout(1000, 2000, 2500);
            // The task has been started and will display a message after
            // one timeout and then cancel itself after the second
            // You can add continuations to the task
            // or wait for the result as needed
            try
            {
                task.Wait();
                Console.WriteLine("Done waiting for task");
            }
            catch (AggregateException ex)
            {
                Console.WriteLine("Error waiting for task:");
                foreach (var e in ex.InnerExceptions)
                {
                    Console.WriteLine(e);
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

Also, the Async CTP provides a TaskEx.Delay method that will wrap the timers in tasks for you. This can give you more control to do things like set the TaskScheduler for the continuation when the Timer fires.

private static Task CreateTaskWithTimeout(
    int xDelay, int yDelay, int taskDelay)
{
    var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
    var token = cts.Token;
    var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
    {
        // Do some work, but fail if cancellation was requested
        token.WaitHandle.WaitOne(taskDelay);
        token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
        Console.WriteLine("Task complete");
    });

    var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();

    var messageTask = TaskEx.Delay(xDelay, timerCts.Token);
    messageTask.ContinueWith(t =>
    {
        // Display message at first timeout
        Console.WriteLine("X milliseconds elapsed");
    }, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);

    var cancelTask = TaskEx.Delay(yDelay, timerCts.Token);
    cancelTask.ContinueWith(t =>
    {
        // Display message and cancel task at second timeout
        Console.WriteLine("Y milliseconds elapsed");
        cts.Cancel();
    }, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);

    task.ContinueWith(t =>
    {
        timerCts.Cancel();
    });

    return task;
}
Leaven answered 21/11, 2010 at 15:19 Comment(4)
He doesn't want the current thread to be blocked, that is, no task.Wait().Elviselvish
@Danny: That was just to make the example complete. After the ContinueWith you could return and let the task run. I'll update my answer to make that more clear.Leaven
@dtb: What if you make t1 a Task<Task<Result>> and then call TaskExtensions.Unwrap? You can return t2 from your inner lambda, and you can add continuations to the unwrapped task afterwards.Leaven
Awesome! That perfectly solves my problem. Thanks! I think I will go with the solution proposed by @AS-CII, although I wish I could accept your answer as well for suggesting TaskExtensions.Unwrap Shall I open a new question so you can get the rep you deserve?Mummery
Z
8

With .Net 6 (preview 7 as the date of this answer), it is possible to use the new WaitAsync(TimeSpan, CancellationToken) which answers to this particular need. If you can use .Net6, this version is moreover described to be optimized if we compare to the majority of good solutions proposed in this posts.

(Thanks for all participants because I used your solution for years)

Zarger answered 20/8, 2021 at 12:35 Comment(0)
N
7

Another way of solving this problem is using Reactive Extensions:

public static Task TimeoutAfter(this Task task, TimeSpan timeout, IScheduler scheduler)
{
        return task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}

Test up above using below code in your unit test, it works for me

TestScheduler scheduler = new TestScheduler();
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
                {
                    int i = 0;
                    while (i < 5)
                    {
                        Console.WriteLine(i);
                        i++;
                        Thread.Sleep(1000);
                    }
                })
                .TimeoutAfter(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5), scheduler)
                .ContinueWith(t => { }, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);

scheduler.AdvanceBy(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(6).Ticks);

You may need the following namespace:

using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Reactive.Subjects;
using System.Reactive.Linq;
using System.Reactive.Threading.Tasks;
using Microsoft.Reactive.Testing;
using System.Threading;
using System.Reactive.Concurrency;
Nea answered 17/6, 2015 at 2:33 Comment(0)
P
5

A generic version of @Kevan's answer above, using Reactive Extensions.

public static Task<T> TimeoutAfter<T>(this Task<T> task, TimeSpan timeout, IScheduler scheduler)
{
    return task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}

With optional Scheduler:

public static Task<T> TimeoutAfter<T>(this Task<T> task, TimeSpan timeout, Scheduler scheduler = null)
{
    return scheduler is null 
       ? task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout).ToTask() 
       : task.ToObservable().Timeout(timeout, scheduler).ToTask();
}

BTW: When a Timeout happens, a timeout exception will be thrown

Perceptible answered 18/5, 2017 at 15:56 Comment(0)
W
5

For the fun of it I made a 'OnTimeout' extension to Task. On timeout Task executes the desired inline lambda Action() and returns true, otherwise false.

public static async Task<bool> OnTimeout<T>(this T t, Action<T> action, int waitms) where T : Task
{
    if (!(await Task.WhenAny(t, Task.Delay(waitms)) == t))
    {
        action(t);
        return true;
    } else {
        return false;
    }
}

The OnTimeout extension returns a bool result that can be assigned to a variable like in this example calling an UDP socket Async:

var t = UdpSocket.ReceiveAsync();

var timeout = await t.OnTimeout(task => {
    Console.WriteLine("No Response");
}, 5000);

The 'task' variable is accessible in the timeout lambda for more processing.

The use of Action receiving an object may inspire to various other extension designs.

Windup answered 21/10, 2021 at 10:11 Comment(0)
C
3

Create a extension to wait for the task or a delay to complete, whichever comes first. Throw an exception if the delay wins.

public static async Task<TResult> WithTimeout<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task, TimeSpan timeout)
{
    if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout)) != task)
        throw new TimeoutException();
    return await task;
}
Camden answered 16/6, 2021 at 20:34 Comment(0)
H
2

So this is ancient, but there's a much better modern solution. Not sure what version of c#/.NET is required, but this is how I do it:


... Other method code not relevant to the question.

// a token source that will timeout at the specified interval, or if cancelled outside of this scope
using var timeoutTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
using var linkedTokenSource = CancellationTokenSource.CreateLinkedTokenSource(token, timeoutTokenSource.Token);

async Task<MessageResource> FetchAsync()
{
    try
    {
        return await MessageResource.FetchAsync(m.Sid);
    } catch (TaskCanceledException e)
    {
        if (timeoutTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
            throw new TimeoutException("Timeout", e);
        throw;
    }
}

return await Task.Run(FetchAsync, linkedTokenSource.Token);

the CancellationTokenSource constructor takes a TimeSpan parameter which will cause that token to cancel after that interval has elapsed. You can then wrap your async (or syncronous, for that matter) code in another call to Task.Run, passing the timeout token.

This assumes you're passing in a cancellation token (the token variable). If you don't have a need to cancel the task separately from the timeout, you can just use timeoutTokenSource directly. Otherwise, you create linkedTokenSource, which will cancel if the timeout ocurrs, or if it's otherwise cancelled.

We then just catch OperationCancelledException and check which token threw the exception, and throw a TimeoutException if a timeout caused this to raise. Otherwise, we rethrow.

Also, I'm using local functions here, which were introduced in C# 7, but you could easily use lambda or actual functions to the same affect. Similarly, c# 8 introduced a simpler syntax for using statements, but those are easy enough to rewrite.

Hotheaded answered 27/8, 2020 at 13:49 Comment(1)
This is the way I went as well. I wrapped mine in a class but it's very similar to yours. Thank you!Cyclograph
P
1

I felt the Task.Delay() task and CancellationTokenSource in the other answers a bit much for my use case in a tight-ish networking loop.

And although Joe Hoag's Crafting a Task.TimeoutAfter Method on MSDN blogs was inspiring, I was a little weary of using TimeoutException for flow control for the same reason as above, because timeouts are expected more frequently than not.

So I went with this, which also handles the optimizations mentioned in the blog:

public static async Task<bool> BeforeTimeout(this Task task, int millisecondsTimeout)
{
    if (task.IsCompleted) return true;
    if (millisecondsTimeout == 0) return false;

    if (millisecondsTimeout == Timeout.Infinite)
    {
        await Task.WhenAll(task);
        return true;
    }

    var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();

    using (var timer = new Timer(state => ((TaskCompletionSource<object>)state).TrySetCanceled(), tcs,
        millisecondsTimeout, Timeout.Infinite))
    {
        return await Task.WhenAny(task, tcs.Task) == task;
    }
}

An example use case is as such:

var receivingTask = conn.ReceiveAsync(ct);

while (!await receivingTask.BeforeTimeout(keepAliveMilliseconds))
{
    // Send keep-alive
}

// Read and do something with data
var data = await receivingTask;
Poulin answered 12/9, 2018 at 11:5 Comment(0)
S
1

A few variants of Andrew Arnott's answer:

  1. If you want to wait for an existing task and find out whether it completed or timed out, but don't want to cancel it if the timeout occurs:

    public static async Task<bool> TimedOutAsync(this Task task, int timeoutMilliseconds)
    {
        if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
    
        if (timeoutMilliseconds == 0) {
            return !task.IsCompleted; // timed out if not completed
        }
        var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
        if (await Task.WhenAny( task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, cts.Token)) == task) {
            cts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
            await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
            return false; // did not timeout
        } else {
            return true; // did timeout
        }
    }
    
  2. If you want to start a work task and cancel the work if the timeout occurs:

    public static async Task<T> CancelAfterAsync<T>( this Func<CancellationToken,Task<T>> actionAsync, int timeoutMilliseconds)
    {
        if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
    
        var taskCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
        var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
        Task<T> task = actionAsync(taskCts.Token);
        if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, timerCts.Token)) == task) {
            timerCts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
        } else {
            taskCts.Cancel(); // timer completed, get rid of task
        }
        return await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
    }
    
  3. If you have a task already created that you want to cancel if a timeout occurs:

    public static async Task<T> CancelAfterAsync<T>(this Task<T> task, int timeoutMilliseconds, CancellationTokenSource taskCts)
    {
        if (timeoutMilliseconds < 0 || (timeoutMilliseconds > 0 && timeoutMilliseconds < 100)) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); }
    
        var timerCts = new CancellationTokenSource();
        if (await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeoutMilliseconds, timerCts.Token)) == task) {
            timerCts.Cancel(); // task completed, get rid of timer
        } else {
            taskCts.Cancel(); // timer completed, get rid of task
        }
        return await task; // test for exceptions or task cancellation
    }
    

Another comment, these versions will cancel the timer if the timeout does not occur, so multiple calls will not cause timers to pile up.

sjb

Sexual answered 30/11, 2018 at 0:7 Comment(0)
D
0

If you use a BlockingCollection to schedule the task, the producer can run the potentially long running task and the consumer can use the TryTake method which has timeout and cancellation token built in.

Decapitate answered 11/2, 2015 at 16:31 Comment(1)
I'd have to write something up (don't want to put proprietary code here) but the scenario is like this. The producer will be the code that executes the method that could time out and will put the results into the queue when done. The consumer will call trytake() with timeout and will receive the token upon timeout. Both producer and consumer will be backround tasks and display a message to the user using UI thread dispatcher if need be.Decapitate
R
0

I'm recombinging the ideas of some other answers here and this answer on another thread into a Try-style extension method. This has a benefit if you want an extension method, yet avoiding an exception upon timeout.

public static async Task<bool> TryWithTimeoutAfter<TResult>(this Task<TResult> task,
    TimeSpan timeout, Action<TResult> successor)
{

    using var timeoutCancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
    var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(task, Task.Delay(timeout, timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Token))
                                  .ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);

    if (completedTask == task)
    {
        timeoutCancellationTokenSource.Cancel();

        // propagate exception rather than AggregateException, if calling task.Result.
        var result = await task.ConfigureAwait(continueOnCapturedContext: false);
        successor(result);
        return true;
    }
    else return false;        
}     

async Task Example(Task<string> task)
{
    string result = null;
    if (await task.TryWithTimeoutAfter(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1), r => result = r))
    {
        Console.WriteLine(result);
    }
}    
Retarded answered 12/11, 2019 at 8:6 Comment(0)

© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.