525

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?

dtb
  • 213,145
  • 36
  • 401
  • 431
  • 3
    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. – Aliostad Nov 21 '10 at 14:46
  • 5
    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`](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.cancellationtokensource(v=VS.110).aspx). Two overloads to the constructor are available, one taking a integer millisecond delay and one taking a TimeSpan delay. – patridge Jul 31 '12 at 18:24
  • The complete simple lib source here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11831844/unobservedtaskexception-being-throw-but-it-is-handled-by-a-taskscheduler-unobser –  Jan 21 '13 at 15:33
  • any final solution with full source code working ? maybe more complex sample for notify errors in each thread and after WaitAll shows a summary ? – Kiquenet Jan 01 '14 at 10:55
  • 1
    To add to what @patridge suggested it can also be achieved using [CancellationTokenSource.CancelAfter()](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/concepts/async/cancel-async-tasks-after-a-period-of-time) – maicalal Jul 12 '21 at 09:34
  • Vijay Nirmal's [answer](https://stackoverflow.com/a/68998339/11178549), featuring the new .NET 6 [Task.WaitAsync](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-in/dotnet/api/system.threading.tasks.task.waitasync) API, should be the accepted one IMHO. – Theodor Zoulias May 20 '22 at 16:43

20 Answers20

732

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
}
Andrew Arnott
  • 80,040
  • 26
  • 132
  • 171
  • 109
    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. – Jeff Schumacher Aug 23 '13 at 15:40
  • 43
    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. – Andrew Arnott Jan 17 '14 at 13:49
  • 17
    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 } – srm Jan 14 '15 at 17:24
  • 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? – srm Jan 14 '15 at 17:56
  • @srm 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. – Andrew Arnott Feb 03 '15 at 16:16
  • 2
    It's worth noting that this solution (while great) requires .Net 4.5 or greater... Those of us using .Net 4.0 are SOL. – Arvo Bowen Apr 01 '16 at 01:45
  • This is great but the task doesn't return a value. What are you supposed to do when you need to return a value? – Christian Findlay May 21 '18 at 23:39
  • 1
    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. – Andrew Arnott May 24 '18 at 13:33
  • 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. – sjb-sjb Nov 29 '18 at 23:59
  • 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?? – ilans Mar 11 '19 at 10:08
  • 3
    @ilans 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). – Andrew Arnott Mar 25 '19 at 03:28
  • Hmm... any reason why this wouldn't work in Xamarin iOS? Never seems to "timeout". – Mark Z. Aug 21 '19 at 10:43
  • Why not just use: task.Wait(timeout) directly? – Tomex Ou Jan 16 '20 at 14:32
  • 1
    The blog post was moved. The new location is https://devblogs.microsoft.com/pfxteam/crafting-a-task-timeoutafter-method/ – J Man Jan 23 '20 at 15:24
  • 4
    @TomexOu: the question was how to *asynchronously* await a Task's completion. `Task.Wait(timeout)` would synchronously block instead of asynchronously await. – Andrew Arnott Feb 03 '20 at 01:28
  • 1
    Regarding the version on top that uses a `Task.Delay` without passing a cancellation token, most likely it will generate [a warning](https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/33805 "Detect non-cancelable Task.Delay passed to Task.WhenAny") on .NET 8. – Theodor Zoulias Dec 16 '22 at 10:14
323

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.");
        }
    }
}
Redwood
  • 66,744
  • 41
  • 126
  • 187
  • 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? – Kir Jul 07 '14 at 21:01
  • 2
    @Kir 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 http://stackoverflow.com/a/4238575/1512 using Task.WaitAny which does block until one of the tasks has completed. – Redwood Jul 07 '14 at 21:12
  • 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? – Kir Jul 08 '14 at 13:36
  • @Kir I don't think I could explain it well in a comment. You should consider opening a new question about it. – Redwood Jul 09 '14 at 19:38
  • 16
    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. – Lucas Jul 29 '15 at 07:02
  • 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. – It's a trap Sep 14 '16 at 05:21
  • 7
    @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. – M. Mimpen Mar 16 '17 at 07:34
  • 9
    Will the original task (`task`) still continue to run in the event of a timeout? – jag Jul 04 '18 at 12:36
  • 10
    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. – Edward Brey Sep 05 '18 at 23:36
  • 1
    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`) ? – jamespconnor Jul 30 '19 at 14:16
  • 2
    To follow up my last comment, I've just tested this and a cancelled Task.Delay does not raise a `TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException` event – jamespconnor Jul 30 '19 at 14:26
  • 4
    @jag, yes, the original task will continue to run. There are other answers below (including mine), that cancel the original task on timeout. – Josef Bláha Sep 18 '19 at 14:02
80

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`");
}
Vijay Nirmal
  • 5,239
  • 4
  • 26
  • 59
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).

ruffin
  • 16,507
  • 9
  • 88
  • 138
Tomas Petricek
  • 240,744
  • 19
  • 378
  • 553
  • 1
    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 :) – GrahamMc Feb 07 '13 at 12:59
  • 3
    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. – JJschk Feb 08 '13 at 15:14
  • @JJschk you mention you took the solution `below` .... which is that? based on SO ordering? – BozoJoe May 18 '18 at 05:54
  • 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.. – Akmal Salikhov Jan 24 '20 at 12:07
28

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;
}
Theodor Zoulias
  • 34,835
  • 7
  • 69
  • 104
Josef Bláha
  • 1,033
  • 10
  • 21
  • 1
    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. – AxelUser Oct 23 '19 at 11:42
  • @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! – Josef Bláha Oct 24 '19 at 20:04
  • I'm having a hard time figuring out how to actually call this with a defined Task function; any chance you could tack on an example of how to call it? – jhaagsma May 28 '20 at 21:35
  • 1
    @jhaagsma, example added! – Josef Bláha May 29 '20 at 17:27
  • @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! – jhaagsma May 29 '20 at 17:49
  • 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. – Daniel Lo Nigro Apr 12 '21 at 00:16
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.

Cocowalla
  • 13,822
  • 6
  • 66
  • 112
  • 4
    This is now built in to .Net 6! https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.threading.tasks.task.waitasync?view=net-6.0 – Rotem Apr 08 '22 at 01:25
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.

Contango
  • 76,540
  • 58
  • 260
  • 305
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.

as-cii
  • 12,819
  • 4
  • 41
  • 43
  • 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. – as-cii Nov 21 '10 at 15:16
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;
}
Quartermeister
  • 57,579
  • 7
  • 124
  • 111
  • He doesn't want the current thread to be blocked, that is, no `task.Wait()`. – Cheng Chen Nov 21 '10 at 15:29
  • @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. – Quartermeister Nov 21 '10 at 15:36
  • 2
    @dtb: What if you make t1 a Task> and then call TaskExtensions.Unwrap? You can return t2 from your inner lambda, and you can add continuations to the unwrapped task afterwards. – Quartermeister Nov 21 '10 at 16:10
  • 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? – dtb Nov 21 '10 at 16:22
7

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)

Armand
  • 251
  • 4
  • 6
6

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;
Kevan
  • 109
  • 2
  • 7
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

1iveowl
  • 1,622
  • 1
  • 18
  • 31
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.

flodis
  • 1,123
  • 13
  • 9
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;
}
Edward Brey
  • 40,302
  • 20
  • 199
  • 253
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;
antak
  • 19,481
  • 9
  • 72
  • 80
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

sjb-sjb
  • 1,112
  • 6
  • 14
1

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.

thomasrea0113
  • 360
  • 1
  • 9
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.

kns98
  • 330
  • 2
  • 7
  • 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. – kns98 Feb 11 '15 at 17:28
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);
    }
}    
tm1
  • 1,180
  • 12
  • 28
-1

In case anyone is looking for something like this (12 years after the OP's question)..

Another option is to just use Task.Wait(timeout) inside another Task.Run(). This is if you want to somehow avoid using Task.WaitAny() or even the await call. Or, for my case, just for consistency with the rest of the .cs I'm working with.

Something like this:

        int timeout = 5000;
        var actualTask = new Task(() =>
        {
            // Do your stuff here
        });

        Task.Run(() =>
        {
            actualTask.Start();
            if (!actualTask.Wait(timeout))
            {
                return false;
                // or throw new TimeoutException("Operation timed out!");
            }

            return true;
        }).ContinueWith((timedTaskResult) =>
        {
            if (!timedTaskResult.Result)
            {
                // tell user it timed out!
            }

            if (timedTaskResult.IsFaulted)
            {
                // Tell the user about the error/s via the timedTaskResult.Exception
            }
        });
mickeymicks
  • 637
  • 8
  • 13