Force redraw before long running operations - wpf

When you have a button, and do something like:
Private Function Button_OnClick
Button.Enabled = False
[LONG OPERATION]
End Function
Then the button will not be grayed, because the long operation prevents the UI thread from repainting the control. I know the right design is to start a background thread / dispatcher, but sometimes that's too much hassle for a simple operation.
So how do I force the button to redraw in disabled state? I tried .UpdateLayout() on the Button, but it didn't have any effects. I also tried System.Windows.Forms.DoEvents() which normally works when using WinForms, but it also had no effect.

The following code will do what you're looking for. However I would not use it. Use the BackgroundWorker class for long time operations. It's easy to use and very stable.
Here the code:
public static void ProcessUITasks() {
DispatcherFrame frame = new DispatcherFrame();
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvoke(DispatcherPriority.Background, new DispatcherOperationCallback(delegate(object parameter) {
frame.Continue = false;
return null;
}), null);
Dispatcher.PushFrame(frame);
}
Here you will find a sample on how to use the BackgroundWorker.

InvalidateVisual(); #HCL is right... don't do this
Like you say, it is better to start use a background thread / dispatcher and keep the UI thread unblocked. Consider looking at the Reactive Extensions library from Microsoft for high level asynchronous ui programming

In Windows.Forms, you can Button.Refresh().
In Windows.Forms or WPF, you can yield to the message pump to let it redraw. Async/Await were designed to allow you to do this without the nastiness of HCL's answer.
Private Async Function Button_OnClick
Button.Enabled = False
Await Task.Yield
[LONG OPERATION]
End Function

Related

Has any one out there in the field used Dispatcher.Yield?

In "Lucian Wischik - Async Part 2 -- deep dive into the new language feature of VB/C#" for NDC 2012, the recommended use of Dispatcher.Yield is introduced to me. Does anyone out there have examples (and explanations) of how (and why) this call is used in the wild?
Well for example if you have a long running task but you still need to update your UI you can use Yield.
Yield gives you the ability to leave the current thread context and allow other code to run in the underlying context.
public async void MyButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
for( int i=0; i < 10000; i++)
{
ProcessSomeStuff(i);
// await the Yield to ensure all waiting messages
// are processed before continuing
await Task.Yield();
}
}
In the example above you can process stuff async but calling Yield will allow events on the UI thread to execute also,
I love to use "await Dispatcher.Yield()" whenever I develop WPF applications.
It is easy to use and barely makes any problems in most cases.
The most useful case using Dispatcher.Yield() is when there is a small time of lag in a operation, which can not be bypassed by "Task", "Thread" etc.
For example, let's say that there is a command button which opens a new window or tab.
private void aButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
// Do some ui stuff
// You can not use Task here at large.
}
What happens here is the whole application stopping, and the button UI remains pressed until the new window or tab opens. It is bad user experience and makes the apllicaiton seem so much slow.
and here is a code with a trick.
private async void aButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
await Dispatcher.Yield();
// Do some ui stuff
}
In here, your code works differently. Dispathcer will process other ui operations first before getting into the job. The button pressed motion will be released first and then a new window will come.
Application stopping will be same, but to users the application will be much smooth and fast. So it is usually a good idea to adopt Dispatcher.Yield() in your application.
In addition, Task.Yield() is different from Dispatcher.Yield(). Try two options and see the results.

Replacing methods that use backgroundworker to async / tpl (.NET 4.0)

My questions are many. Since I saw. NET 4.5, I was very impressed. Unfortunately all my projects are .NET 4.0 and I am not thinking about migrating. So I would like to simplify my code.
Currently, most of my code that usually take enough time to freeze the screen, I do the following:
BackgroundWorker bd = new BackgroundWorker();
bd.DoWork += (a, r) =>
{
r.Result = ProcessMethod(r.Argument);
};
bd.RunWorkerCompleted += (a, r) =>
{
UpdateView(r.Result);
};
bd.RunWorkerAsync(args);
Honestly, I'm tired of it. And that becomes a big problem when there is a logic complex user interaction.
I wonder, how to simplify this logic? (Remember that I'm with. Net 4.0) I noticed a few things by google, but not found anything easy to implement and suitable for my needs.
I thought this solution below:
var foo = args as Foo;
var result = AsyncHelper.CustomInvoke<Foo>(ProcessMethod, foo);
UpdateView(result);
public static class AsyncHelper
{
public static T CustomInvoke<T>(Func<T, T> func, T param) where T : class
{
T result = null;
DispatcherFrame frame = new DispatcherFrame();
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
result = func(param);
frame.Continue = false;
});
Dispatcher.PushFrame(frame);
return result;
}
}
I am not sure about the impact is on manipulating the dispatcher frame.
But I know That it would work very well, for example, I could use it in all the events of controls without bothering to freeze the screen.
My knowledge about generic types, covariance, contravariance is limited, maybe this code can be improved.
I thought of other things using Task.Factory.StartNew and Dispatcher.Invoke, but nothing that seems interesting and simple to use. Can anyone give me some light?
You should just use the Task Parallel Library (TPL). The key is specifying the TaskScheduler for the current SynchronizationContext for any continuations in which you update the UI. For example:
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
return ProcessMethod(yourArgument);
})
.ContinueWith(antecedent =>
{
UpdateView(antecedent.Result);
},
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext());
Aside from some exception handling when accessing the antecedent's Result property, that's all there is too it. By using FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() the ambient SynchronizationContext that comes from WPF (i.e. the DispatcherSynchronizationContext) will be used to execute the continuation. This is the same as calling Dispatcher.[Begin]Invoke, but you are completely abstracted from it.
If you wanted to get even "cleaner", if you control ProcessMethod I would actually rewrite that to return a Task and let it own how that gets spun up (can still use StartNew internally). That way you abstract the caller from the async execution decisions that ProcessMethod might want to make on its own and instead they only have to worry about chaining on a continuation to wait for the result.
UPDATE 5/22/2013
It should be noted that with the advent of .NET 4.5 and the async language support in C# this prescribed technique is outdated and you can simply rely on those features to execute a specific task using await Task.Run and then execution after that will take place on the Dispatcher thread again automagically. So something like this:
MyResultType processingResult = await Task.Run(() =>
{
return ProcessMethod(yourArgument);
});
UpdateView(processingResult);
How about encapsulating the code that is always the same in a reusable component? You could create a Freezable which implements ICommand, exposes a property of Type DoWorkEventHandler and a Result property. On ICommand.Executed, it would create a BackgroundWorker and wire up the delegates for DoWork and Completed, using the value of the DoWorkEventHandler as event handler, and handling Completed in a way that it sets its own Result property to the result returned in the event.
You'd configure the component in XAML, using a converter to bind the DoWorkEventHandler property to a method on the ViewModel (I assume you've got one), and bind your View to the component's Result property, so it gets updated automatically when Result does a change notification.
The advantages of this solution are: it is reusable, and it works with XAML only, so no more glue code in your ViewModel just for handling BackgroundWorkers. If you don't need your background process to report progress, it could even be unaware that it runs on a background thread, so you can decide in the XAML whether you want to call a method synchronously or asynchronously.
A few months have passed, but could this help you?
Using async/await without .NET Framework 4.5

MessageBox.Show early in App startup causes app to terminate

As part of my App's startup procedure, it checks data integrity, and if it finds a problem it pops up a message to the user telling them that it might take a while to repair things.
I'm showing the message using MessageBox.Show. Because the data check is done from a worker thread, I'm switching over to the UI thread to make that call, and then setting a ManualResetEvent to tell the worker thread when the user has acknowledged the message.
I kick off the data check/load very early in the app's lifecycle from the constructor in the main Application class, by spinning off a worker thread (using the ThreadPool).
When I run with the debugger, and the message is displayed, the app just waits for input. When I run without the debugger, the app terminates after displaying the dialog for 10 seconds.
That 10 seconds is a big clue - it tells me that the OS thinks the app took too long to initialize (the OS kills apps that take too long to start up).
I think that my MessageBox.Show is blocking the UI thread before the App.RootFrameNavigating has a chance to be invoked.
My questions:
Does my diagnosis sound right?
I'd prefer to kick off my data load early, because it is almost entirely IO, except for this Message Box, and the sooner I can get my Model loaded, the better, but do you normally delay your data load until later in the app lifecycle?
Any other ideas/suggestions? I can't guarantee which page will be the start page, because the app could be resuming to any page. I'm also thinking of having the MessageBox.Show delay itself until the app has initialized, perhaps polling away for a flag set by App.RootFrameNavigating - does that make sense?
I think your problem is a result of kicking off the worker thread in the Application constructor. You should use the appropriate life-cycle event, in this case: PhoneApplicationService.Activated Event
So, the solution I've come up with is to still kick off the data load in a worker-thread from the Application's constructor, but in my PhoneService's class ShowDialog method that I invoke to invoke MessageBox.Show, I check to see if the initial navigation has occurred:
private readonly ManualResetEvent _appInitialized = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void AppInitialized()
{
_appInitialized.Set();
}
public void ShowDialog(string caption, string text, Action<MessageBoxResult> callback, MessageBoxButton button = MessageBoxButton.OKCancel)
{
_appInitialized.WaitOne();
DispatcherHelper.CheckBeginInvokeOnUI(() =>
{
var result = MessageBox.Show(text, caption, button);
if (callback != null)
{
callback(result);
}
});
}
Then in my Application class:
private bool _firstNavigate = true;
private void RootFrameNavigating(object sender, NavigatingCancelEventArgs e)
{
if (_firstNavigate)
{
_firstNavigate = false;
var navigationService = (NavigationService) sender;
navigationService.Navigated += NavigationServiceNavigated;
}
....
private void NavigationServiceNavigated(object sender, NavigationEventArgs e)
{
var navigationService = (NavigationService)sender;
navigationService.Navigated -= NavigationServiceNavigated;
PhoneServices.Current.AppInitialized();
}
Anyone see any issues with this approach? Anyone come up with a better way?

Updating a Progress Bar from Another Thread

I have a windows form on the main thread and another thread that does some calculations. I'd like to update the status bar on my form from the work being done in the other thread. What's the best way to do this?
So far everything I've tried just makes things run really slowly. I'm using Visual Studio 2005.
You can use the marshaling techniques like Control.Invoke to execute a delegate on the UI thread where UI elements can be safely manipulated, but that approach is not very good. Actually, it is a terrible approach if all you want to do is update simple progress information.
By far the best method for doing this is:
Have your worker thread publish progress information to a shared variable.
Have your UI thread poll for it via a System.Windows.Forms.Timers on an interval that works well for you.
Here is what it might look like.
public class Example : Form
{
private volatile int percentComplete = 0;
private void StartThreadButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
StatusBarUpdateTimer.Enabled = true;
new Thread(
() =>
{
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
DoSomeWork();
percentComplete = i;
}
}).Start();
}
private void StatusBarUpdateTimer_Tick(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
yourStatusBarPanel.Text = percentComplete.ToString() + "%";
StatusBarUpdateTimer.Enabled = percentComplete < 100;
}
}
This works well because:
The percentComplete field is declared 'volatile' ensuring its value can be reliably read from multiple threads.
The UI thread gets to dictate when and how often the UI gets updated...the way it should be!
The worker thread does not have to wait for a response from the UI thread before it can proceed as would be the case with Invoke.
It breaks the tight coupling between the UI and worker threads that Invoke would impose.
It is more efficient...considerably.
You get more throughput on both the UI and worker threads.
There is no chance of saturating the UI message queue as could be the case with BeginInvoke.
You do not have to litter you code with Invoke calls everytime you need to update the UI from the worker thread.
Make sure that you only update the user interface from the main thread or else you will have problems. You can switch your thread context by calling Invoke. There's a good post here on that.
You can send messages to the main thread and get it to update the progress bar, although you then need to check for the messages. You could also do the same sort of thing as a polling function.

Update Label while processing in Windows Forms

What is the best way to update a label on a Windows Forms application while processing?
I have a loop that does some processing to files on the user's system when the user clicks a button.
foreach (System.IO.FileInfo f in dir.GetFiles("*.txt"))
{
// Do processing
// Show progress bar
// Update Label on Form, "f.Name is done processing, now processing..."
}
What would be some sample code?
What exactly is this called? Is it threading or delegates?
A quick fix for you would be:
Label1.Text = f.Name + " is done processing, now processing...";
Label1.Refresh();
You really want to avoid DoEvents, otherwise you'll have problems if your user repeatedly presses buttons on your form.
You should be doing this on another thread, and then updating your UI thread from that thread. You are blocking further processing by performing this work on the UI thread.
If you can't move this code to the UI thread, then you could always call Application.DoEvents, but I strongly suggest you explore these options first:
System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker
System.Threading.ThreadPool
System.Threading.Thread
System.Threading.Tasks namespace
You'll need to get your data from one thread to the other. This can be done in a couple of ways...
First, your "background" thread could update some kind of "CurrentStatus" string variable that it changes as it goes along. You could then put a timer on your form that would then grab the CurrentStatus variable and update the label with it.
Second, you could simply invoke the operation from the background thread to the UI thread with a delegate using the InvokeRequired property of the label control. So for example...
private delegate void UpdateStatusDelegate(string status);
private void UpdateStatus(string status)
{
if (this.label1.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke(new UpdateStatusDelegate(this.UpdateStatus), new object[] { status });
return;
}
this.label1.Text = status;
}
You can call that UpdateStatus() method from any thread (UI or background), and it will detect whether or not it needs to invoke the operation on the main UI thread (and if so, does it).
To actually set up the thread, you can do so like this:
private void StartProcessing()
{
System.Threading.Thread procThread = new System.Threading.Thread(this.Process);
procThread.Start();
}
private void Process() // This is the actual method of the thread
{
foreach (System.IO.FileInfo f in dir.GetFiles("*.txt"))
{
// Do processing
// Show progress bar
// Update Label on Form, "f.Name is done processing, now processing..."
UpdateStatus("Processing " + f.Name + "...");
}
}
Then when the user clicks the "GO" button you'll simply call StartProcessing().
If your processing is lengthy do it in a backgroundworker thread.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
I also recommend to use :
Application.DoEvents();
Processes all Windows messages currently in the message queue.

Resources