ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

If my interface must return Task what is the best way to have a no-operation implementation?

In the code below, due to the interface, the class LazyBar must return a task from its method (and for argument's sake can't be changed). If LazyBars implementation is unusual in that it happens to run quickly and synchronously - what is the best way to return a No-Operation task from the method?

I have gone with Task.Delay(0) below, however I would like to know if this has any performance side-effects if the function is called a lot (for argument's sake, say hundreds of times a second):

Does this syntactic sugar un-wind to something big?

Does it start clogging up my application's thread pool?

Is the compiler cleaver enough to deal with Delay(0) differently?

Would return Task.Run(() => { }); be any different?

Is there a better way?

using System.Threading.Tasks;

namespace MyAsyncTest
{
    internal interface IFooFace
    {
        Task WillBeLongRunningAsyncInTheMajorityOfImplementations();
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// An implementation, that unlike most cases, will not have a long-running
    /// operation in 'WillBeLongRunningAsyncInTheMajorityOfImplementations'
    /// </summary>
    internal class LazyBar : IFooFace
    {
        #region IFooFace Members

        public Task WillBeLongRunningAsyncInTheMajorityOfImplementations()
        {
            // First, do something really quick
            var x = 1;

            // Can't return 'null' here! Does 'Task.Delay(0)' have any performance considerations?
            // Is it a real no-op, or if I call this a lot, will it adversely affect the
            // underlying thread-pool? Better way?
            return Task.Delay(0);

            // Any different?
            // return Task.Run(() => { });

            // If my task returned something, I would do:
            // return Task.FromResult<int>(12345);
        }

        #endregion
    }

    internal class Program
    {
        private static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            Test();
        }

        private static async void Test()
        {
            IFooFace foo = FactoryCreate();
            await foo.WillBeLongRunningAsyncInTheMajorityOfImplementations();
            return;
        }

        private static IFooFace FactoryCreate()
        {
            return new LazyBar();
        }
    }
}
Personally I'd go with Task.FromResult<object>(null).

S
Servy

Today, I would recommend using Task.CompletedTask to accomplish this.

Pre .net 4.6:

Using Task.FromResult(0) or Task.FromResult<object>(null) will incur less overhead than creating a Task with a no-op expression. When creating a Task with a result pre-determined, there is no scheduling overhead involved.


And if you happen to be using github.com/StephenCleary/AsyncEx they provide a TaskConstants class to provide these completed tasks along with several other quite useful ones (0 int, true/false, Default<T>())
return default(YourReturnType);
@Legends That doesn't work for creating a Task directly
im not sure but Task.CompletedTask might do the trick! (but requires .net 4.6)
C
Community

To add to Reed Copsey's answer about using Task.FromResult, you can improve performance even more if you cache the already completed task since all instances of completed tasks are the same:

public static class TaskExtensions
{
    public static readonly Task CompletedTask = Task.FromResult(false);
}

With TaskExtensions.CompletedTask you can use the same instance throughout the entire app domain.

The latest version of the .Net Framework (v4.6) adds just that with the Task.CompletedTask static property

Task completedTask = Task.CompletedTask;

Do I need to return it or await on it?
@Pixar what do you mean? You can do both, but awaiting it will continue synchronously.
Sorry, I had to mention the context :) As I see it now, we can make public Task WillBeLongRunningAsyncInTheMajorityOfImplementations() as well as public async Task WillBeLongRunningAsyncInTheMajorityOfImplementations(). So, we can either return CompletedTask; or await CompletedTask;. What is more preferrable (maybe more efficient or more congruent)?
@Pixar I wan't clear. I meant "'no-async' would be more efficient". Making a method async instructs the compiler to transform it into a state-machine. It will also create a new task each time you call it. Returning an already completed task would be clearer and more performant.
@Asad it reduces allocations (and with it GC time). Instead of allocation new memory and constructing a Task instance each time you need a completed Task, you only do this once.
J
Jon Hanna

Task.Delay(0) as in the accepted answer was a good approach, as it is a cached copy of a completed Task.

As of 4.6 there's now Task.CompletedTask which is more explicit in its purpose, but not only does Task.Delay(0) still return a single cached instance, it returns the same single cached instance as does Task.CompletedTask.

The cached nature of neither is guaranteed to remain constant, but as implementation-dependent optimisations that are only implementation-dependent as optimisations (that is, they'd still work correctly if the implementation changed to something that was still valid) the use of Task.Delay(0) was better than the accepted answer.


I'm still using 4.5 and when I did some research I was amused to find that Task.Delay(0) is special cased to return a static CompletedTask member. Which I then cached in my own static CompletedTask member. :P
I don't know why, but Task.CompletedTask can't be used in PCL project, even if I set the .net version to 4.6 (profile 7), just tested in VS2017.
@Fay I'd guess it must not be part of the PCL API surface, though the only thing do anything with at the moment that supports PCL also supports 4.5 so I'm already having to use my own Task.CompletedTask => Task.Delay(0); to support that, so I don't know for sure off the top of my head.
A
Alexander Trauzzi

Recently encountered this and kept getting warnings/errors about the method being void.

We're in the business of placating the compiler and this clears it up:

    public async Task MyVoidAsyncMethod()
    {
        await Task.CompletedTask;
    }

This brings together the best of all the advice here so far. No return statement is necessary unless you're actually doing something in the method.


That is completely wrong. You are getting a compiler error because the method definition contains async, so the compiler expects an await. The "correct" usage would be public Task MyVoidAsyncMethog() { return Task.CompletedTask;}
Not sure why this was down voted as this seems to be the cleanest answer
Because of Keith's comment.
He isn't totally wrong, he's just removed the async keyword. My approach is more idiomatic. His is minimalistic. If not a bit rude.
This makes no sense, completely agree with Keith here, I don't get all the upvotes actually. Why would you add code that is not necessary? public Task MyVoidAsyncMethod() {} is completely the same as above method. If there is a usecase for using it like this, please add the additional code.
X
Xin
return Task.CompletedTask; // this will make the compiler happy

return didn't work for me - for an async Task, I had to just use await Task.CompletedTask.
@dylanh724 I think it depends on your function definition, the original question requires returns something, so return Task.CompletedTask should help. However, if your function definition prob return void, then you can await
t
trashmaker_

When you must return specified type:

Task.FromResult<MyClass>(null);

R
Remco te Wierik

I prefer the Task completedTask = Task.CompletedTask; solution of .Net 4.6, but another approach is to mark the method async and return void:

    public async Task WillBeLongRunningAsyncInTheMajorityOfImplementations()
    {
    }

You'll get a warning (CS1998 - Async function without await expression), but this is safe to ignore in this context.


If your method returns void, you can have issues with exceptions.
K
Karthikeyan VK

If you are using generics, all answer will give us compile error. You can use return default(T);. Sample below to explain further.

public async Task<T> GetItemAsync<T>(string id)
            {
                try
                {
                    var response = await this._container.ReadItemAsync<T>(id, new PartitionKey(id));
                    return response.Resource;
                }
                catch (CosmosException ex) when (ex.StatusCode == System.Net.HttpStatusCode.NotFound)
                {

                    return default(T);
                }

            }

The question wasn't about async methods :)
J
J.M.H
return await Task.FromResult(new MyClass());

While this code may solve the question, including an explanation of how and why this solves the problem would really help to improve the quality of your post, and probably result in more up-votes. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, not just the person asking now. Please edit your answer to add explanations and give an indication of what limitations and assumptions apply.