CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c#asynchronousasync-awaitsystem.reactive
1iveowl
1iveowl

Reputation: 1752

Alternative to using async () => in Rx Finally

My understanding is that async void, should be avoided and that async () => is just async void in disguise when used with Action.

Hence, using the Rx.NET Finally operator asynchronously with async () => should be avoided since Finally accepts Action as parameter:

IObservable<T>.Finally(async () =>
{
    await SomeCleanUpCodeAsync();
};

However, if this is bad practise, what is then best practice to use in the case where I for instance need to asynchronously close a network connection on OnCompleted or if my observable end with OnError?

Upvotes: 4

Views: 2212

Answers (4)

Theodor Zoulias
Theodor Zoulias

Reputation: 43996

Quoting from the Intro to Rx:

The Finally extension method accepts an Action as a parameter. This Action will be invoked if the sequence terminates normally or erroneously, or if the subscription is disposed of.

(emphasis added)

This behavior cannot be replicated by a Finally operator that accepts a Func<Task> parameter, because of how the IObservable<T> interface is defined. Unsubscribing from an observable sequence is achieved by calling the Dispose method of the IDisposable subscription. This method is synchronous. And the whole Rx library is built on top of this interface. So even if you create an extension method DisposeAsync for IDisposables, the built-in Rx operators (for example Select, SelectMany, Where, Take etc) will be unaware of its existence, and will not invoke it when they unsubscribe from their source sequence. A subscription chain of operators will be automatically unlinked by calling the synchronous Dispose method of the previous link as always.

Btw there has been an attempt to implement an asynchronous version of Rx (AsyncRx), that is built on top of the completely new interfaces that are shown below. This library has not been released yet.

public interface IAsyncObserver<in T>
{
    ValueTask OnNextAsync(T value);
    ValueTask OnErrorAsync(Exception error);
    ValueTask OnCompletedAsync();
}

public interface IAsyncObservable<out T>
{
    ValueTask<IAsyncDisposable> SubscribeAsync(IAsyncObserver<T> observer);
}

public interface IAsyncDisposable
{
    public ValueTask DisposeAsync();
}

Upvotes: 2

Shlomo
Shlomo

Reputation: 14370

My understanding is that async void, should be avoided and that async () => is just async void in disguise.

This is partially wrong. async () => can either match Func<Task> (good) or Action (bad). The main reason for good/bad is that an exception that occurs in a async void call crashes the process, whereas a async Task exception is catchable.

So we just need to write an AsyncFinally operator that takes in a Func<Task> instead of an Action like Observable.Finally:

public static class X
{
    public static IObservable<T> AsyncFinally<T>(this IObservable<T> source, Func<Task> action)
    {
        return source
            .Materialize()
            .SelectMany(async n =>
            {
                switch (n.Kind)
                {
                    case NotificationKind.OnCompleted:
                    case NotificationKind.OnError:
                        await action();
                        return n;
                    case NotificationKind.OnNext:
                        return n;
                    default:
                        throw new NotImplementedException();
                }
            })
            .Dematerialize()
        ;
    }
}

And here's a demonstration of usage:

try
{
    Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100))
        .Take(10)
        .AsyncFinally(async () =>
        {
            await Task.Delay(1000);
            throw new NotImplementedException();
        })
        .Subscribe(i => Console.WriteLine(i));
}
catch(Exception e)
{
    Console.WriteLine("Exception caught, no problem");
}

If you swap out AsyncFinally for Finally, you'll crash the process.

Upvotes: 3

Asti
Asti

Reputation: 12687

The method signature for Finally is

public static IObservable<TSource> Finally<TSource>(
    this IObservable<TSource> source,
    Action finallyAction
)

which expects an action, not a Task.

As an addendum, if you want to run something asynchronously, instead of async void, use Task.Factory methods inside the method so the intention is explicit.

Upvotes: 2

Jon G St&#248;dle
Jon G St&#248;dle

Reputation: 3904

It is in Rx as it is elsewhere; avoid async void like the plague. In addition to the problems listed in the article, using asynchronous code in the synchronous operators "breaks" Rx.

I'd consider using OnErrorResumeNext() for cleaning up resources asynchronously. OnErrorResumeNext() let's you specify an observable which will run after the first, regardless the reason it ended:

var myObservable = ...

myObservable
    .Subscribe( /* Business as usual */ );

Observable.OnErrorResumeNext(
        myObservable.Select(_ => Unit.Default),
        Observable.FromAsync(() => SomeCleanUpCodeAsync()))
    .Subscribe();

myObservable would preferably be a ConnectableObservable (e.g. Publish()) to prevent multiple subscriptions.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions