Search Results

Search found 10533 results on 422 pages for 'task organization'.

Page 3/422 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Task Scheduler not able to execute .vbs scripts successfully

  - by Django Reinhardt

  Apologies if this has a really obvious answer! We have several daily tasks we run via a .vbs script on our server (through the Task Scheduler), and for months it has been fine, but recently we've hit a problem. The .vbs scripts stopped successfully executing (always timing out)... but could still be executed manually with no problems(!). Not knowing any good reason why the Task Scheduler should start having problems, we thought we'd try a little "creative thinking", and run the .vbs another way: Via a .bat file executed by the Task Scheduler. Again we hit weird issues, but with a little more debugging information, this time around. The .bat file run by Task Scheduler is nothing more than... CScript "C:\location\script.vbs" > Log.txt But after an attempt to run it, the Task Scheduler fails with the following error: 0x1: An incorrect function was called or an unknown function was called. The Log.txt (as output from the .bat file above) says: CScript Error: Initialization of the Windows Script Host failed. (Not enough storage is available to process this command. ) But get this: The .bat file executes perfectly (vbs script and all) if it's executed with a double click! There's only a problem when it's run by Task Scheduler. What the hell? We're running Windows Server 2008 R2 (x64) and yes, the Task Sheduler's results are the same whether the user is logged in or not. Also, the user that can run the scripts successfully manually, is also the same user that runs the scripts in Task Scheduler. Thanks for any help for this weird problem!

  Read the article

• Why am I getting a warning that windows is logging on with a temporary profile to run a task scheduler task?

  - by Dan C

  I am having a strange problem with the Windows Server 2008 Task Scheduler. I have to run a small command-line application every few minutes. This application just executes a quick web service call on the localhost and adds an entry to a log file; so it should not need anything special in terms of permissions. First, I created a new user account "my_scheduler" just for the task. This account is a member of the Users group (not sure what other settings I should turn on/off) and set it's password to not expire. I then create a task to run the application every few minutes. I set it to "Run whether user is logged on or not" and turned on "Do not store password. The task will only have access to local resources" (I did this since it's not hitting anything on the network. I did not turn on "Run with highest privileges" since it does not seem to need them. I set the schedule to "After triggered, repeat every 30 minutes for a duration of 1 day" and "Allow task to be run on demand" (no other settings enabled). However, I notice that in the Event Log, I see a bunch of these warnings whenever the task is run: "Windows cannot find the local profile and is logging you on with a temporary profile. Changes you make to this profile will be lost when you log off." Even though I get the warning, the task is executing (I see the log entries appearing). Another (possibly related) issue is that I also see that it's starting multiple copies of the task (within a few seconds of each other) even though it should only start one. This is also a big problem. Any idea how I can fix this? Thanks in advance, Dan

  Read the article

• Install and enforce a scheduled task across a Windows domain

  - by Ricket

  We have a small domain of about 70 Windows computers (XP and 7). We want to schedule a command (an update mechanism) to run on all computers periodically, and we want the task to run regardless of the computer's connection to our network (i.e. the task should run even on a laptop that isn't connected to our VPN). We have a Microsoft System Center Essentials 2010 server so that might come in handy. The options I see are these: Do it completely manually. Install the scheduled task by hand or remotely using psexec (and the at command?) for each computer in our network. Enforce that newly imaged computers should have this task installed on them before deployed to the employee, or the task should be in the image. High initial cost (having to do this for each of 70 computers) but building it into the image might work... But there is some maintenance in making sure the task is added to everything. And I fear that a year or two down the road, we will have forgotten about it or gotten sloppy or had new IT employees who miss this step and some computers won't have the task. Having one of our servers run a script that loops through all computers and psexec's the command on each computer in the network -- it would only run on running, connected computers, so this solution wouldn't work. I suspect SCE could do something like this too, but again this is not a good solution. Neither of these are ideal, and I'm certain there is a better way to do it -- right? What is the best way to accomplish this task?

  Read the article

• Task Sequence boots to logon screen instead of task sequence mode

  - by Ben M.

  I'm running a task sequence, and so that users don't accidentally interfere, I have the task sequence reboot to currently installed operating system, which as I understand, is supposed to boot to a sort of single user mode and all that shows is task sequence progress. However, this does not happen, it boots up like normal and comes to the logon screen and the task sequence runs in background. How can I adjust this behavior to the desired result?

  Read the article

• Circular dependency and object creation when attempting DDD

  - by Matthew

  I have a domain where an Organization has People. Organization Entity public class Organization { private readonly List<Person> _people = new List<Person>(); public Person CreatePerson(string name) { var person = new Person(organization, name); _people.Add(person); return person; } public IEnumerable<Person> People { get { return _people; } } } Person Entity public class Person { public Person(Organization organization, string name) { if (organization == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("organization"); } Organization = organization; Name = name; } public Organization { get; private set; } public Name { get; private set; } } The rule for this relationship is that a Person must belong to exactly one Organization. The invariants I want to guarantee are: A person must have an organization this is enforced via the Person's constuctor An organization must know of its people this is why the Organization has a CreatePerson method A person must belong to only one organization this is why the organization's people list is not publicly mutable (ignoring the casting to List, maybe ToEnumerable can enforce that, not too concerned about it though) What I want out of this is that if a person is created, that the organization knows about its creation. However, the problem with the model currently is that you are able to create a person without ever adding it to the organizations collection. Here's a failing unit-test to describe my problem [Test] public void AnOrganizationMustKnowOfItsPeople() { var organization = new Organization(); var person = new Person(organization, "Steve McQueen"); CollectionAssert.Contains(organization.People, person); } What is the most idiomatic way to enforce the invariants and the circular relationship?

  Read the article

• Corporate Wiki Organization - Technical Documentation

  - by Dave Jarvis

  Corporations have documents describing various aspects of their technical systems, including: Custom Applications Custom Development Frameworks Third Party Applications Accounting Bug Tracking Network Management How To Guides User Manuals Web Browsers Software Tools Development IDEs Graphics GIMP xv Text Editing File Transfer ncFTP WinSCP Hardware Servers Web Database Exchange File Network Devices Printers Drawings If you had to use a Wiki to manage the documentation, what other items would you add to the list, and how would you organize it? (For example, would Software Tools make more sense under Third Party Applications?) A few constraints: The structure should not go beyond three levels deep. Avoid the word "and" in favour of two different categories. Keep the structure general: it should appy as broadly as possible. Target audience is primarily technical, but could be visible by anyone.

  Read the article

• Corporate Wiki Organization - Technical Documentation

  - by Dave Jarvis

  Corporations have documents describing various aspects of their technical systems, including: Custom Applications Custom Development Frameworks Third Party Applications Accounting Bug Tracking Network Management How To Guides User Manuals Software Tools Web Browsers Development IDEs Graphics GIMP xv Text Editing File Transfer ncFTP WinSCP Hardware Servers Web Database Exchange File Network Devices Printers If you had to use a Wiki to manage the documentation, what other items would you add to the list, and how would you organize it? (For example, would Software Tools make more sense under Third Party Applications?) A few constraints: The structure should not go beyond three levels deep. Avoid the word "and" in favour of two different categories. Keep the structure general: it should appy as broadly as possible. Target audience is primarily technical, but could be visible by anyone.

  Read the article

• Windows scheduled task not running

  - by Ravi Kumar Singh

  I have several SQL server backups on a server. I have created a batch file which then copies these to network drives. These are mapped to the server, and it works properly. Now, I've created a scheduled task to do this. If I select "run the task when logged in", I can test the task. It works fine. However I cannot test it with the other option "run task if logged in or not". I've read that testing this task is not possible manually. However the task runs when we log off the server automatically.

  Read the article

• Why is Windows Task Scheduler trying to launch multiple instances?

  - by Paul H

  We have a number of Windows Scheduled tasks that run on one Server 2008 Webserver (not R2) which is in a cluster. We recently moved from an original webserver Cluster to a new webserver Cluser (Server 2008 - not R2). The new webserver (in the cluster) running the Windows Tasks is setup the same as on the original we believe. BUT we now find that on the new Windows Server the Windows Task Scheduler seems to want to instantly start each task three times. If we set the option to queue up a new task we get: Event ID 324 Task Scheduler queued instance "{9a1a8411-b042-45ff-8e6b-89874df230d7}" of task "\Client Reporting" and will launch it as soon as instance "{2bcc3df6-ea3b-4453-90c2-75b8b1946388}" completes. If we set the option to stop an existing task we get: Event ID 323 Task Scheduler stopped instance "{e685a910-b32b-414e-85fd-96bbe54314a2}" of task "\Client Reporting" in order to launch new instance "{4db66265-1f51-4ede-8535-ac7c3cb5c4c1}" . Ticked settings: Allow task to be run on demand. Run task as soon as possible after a scheduled start is missed. Stop the task if running for longer than 1 hour. If the running task does not end when requested force it to stop. Start the task only if the computer is on AC power. Stop the task if the computer switches to battery power. Selected option: If the task is already running - stop the existing instance. Note: We moved the tasks from one server to another in the cluster to see if it the Task Scheduler on the particular server we'd picked causing the problem. Same behaviour. Could it be something to do with the build of the new servers? We have very similar tasks set up on another server cluster that work OK without all this multiple starting. Comparing those tasks to the ones here - there does not seem to be anything obviously different in terms of settings available to us through the options within the Task Scheduler. Trigger: The task is scheduled to be triggered daily, once an hour - and to be stopped if it exceeds this time. Action: Runs a .bat file. What could be causing this/where we can look to see what logic is causing the tasks to start multiple times in this way?

  Read the article

• Organization: Ways to link/group documents with emails?

  - by Scott Smith

  I like keeping my stuff organized, but short of printing everything out and keeping it in an actual file cabinet, I've never figured out a good way to link/group document files with related emails. This means that when I'm looking for something, I often have to search in my email program, and then through the documents stored in some filesystem folder. Has anyone out there come up with a neat way to group related stuff like this for searching, archiving, etc?

  Read the article

• task scheduler - run interactively as any user with admin credentials

  - by Force Flow

  I'm trying to deploy a scheduled task with a GPO. The task is set to run at login and executes a batch file, which then executes an EXE file. However, I also need it to be interactive and run with admin privledges to bypass the UAC prompt for a username and password when the exe file runs. I created the task for "Vista and later". I've tried running the task as mydoman\administrator and as NT AUTHORITY\Authenticated users with "run only when user is logged in" and "run with highest privledges" selected. If I log in as anyone but administrator, the task does run in the background, as I can see the cmd.exe process running in task manager as mydomain\administrator. Only if I log in as administrator do I then see the cmd window with the batch script running. How can I get the cmd window to display no matter which user logs in?

  Read the article

• Windows Task Scheduler won't let me uncheck "Wake the computer" option for a backup task

  - by KdawgUD

  I have a problem with my windows 7 laptop automatically waking after I put it to sleep and then I find it later with the battery drained. I tracked down the culprit using the "powercfg -lastwake" command to be a Backup task in the "Windows Server" section of the task scheduler. I have tried unchecking the "Wake the computer to run this task" checkbox for this task, but after I do this and reboot, the box is always rechecked again. How can I make this setting persist? I have full admin rights to this laptop, but it is on a domain. Edit: I looked into the domain policy settings as suggested by Dave below and did not find any policies related to scheduled task settings. Any other ideas?

  Read the article

• Unique task queue task names only for active duration

  - by antony.trupe

  I want to guarantee that a task is not in a task queue more then once, so I generate a unique name based on it's payload. But, that task name is reserved for up to 7 days, which is not what I want; I only want it reserved for the duration the task is queued; it could be immediately re-queued. Once a Task with name N is written, any subsequent attempts to insert a Task named N will fail. Eventually (at least seven days after the task successfully executes), the task will be deleted and the name N can be reused. Is there a way to check if the named task is already in the queue then add it if it's not? Or a totally different approach?

  Read the article

• Process runs slower as a scheduled task than it does interactively

  - by Charlie

  I have a scheduled task which is very CPU- and IO-intensive, and takes about four hours to run (building source code, if you're curious). The task is a Powershell script which spawns various sub-processes to do its work. When I run the same process interactively from a Powershell prompt, as the same user account, it runs in about two and a half hours. The task is running on Windows Server 2008 R2. What I want to know is why it takes so much longer to run as a scheduled task - more than an hour longer. One thing I noticed is that the task scheduler runs at Below-Normal priority, so when my task starts, it inherits the same lowered priority. However, I've updated the script to set the Powershell process priority back to Normal, and it still takes just as long. Anybody have an idea what could be different between the two scenarios? I've ruled out differences in processor and IO load - this task is the only thing the system is used for, so there's nothing else running that could be competing for resources.

  Read the article

• legitimacy of the tasks in the task scheduler

  - by Eyad

  Is there a way to know the source and legitimacy of the tasks in the task scheduler in windows server 2008 and 2003? Can I check if the task was added by Microsoft (ie: from sccm) or by a 3rd party application? For each task in the task scheduler, I want to verify that the task has not been created by a third party application. I only want to allow standards Microsoft Tasks and disable all other non-standards tasks. I have created a PowerShell script that goes through all the xml files in the C:\Windows\System32\Tasks directory and I was able to read all the xml task files successfully but I am stuck on how to validate the tasks. Here is the script for your reference: Function TaskSniper() { #Getting all the fils in the Tasks folder $files = Get-ChildItem "C:\Windows\System32\Tasks" -Recurse | Where-Object {!$_.PSIsContainer}; [Xml] $StandardXmlFile = Get-Content "Edit Me"; foreach($file in $files) { #constructing the file path $path = $file.DirectoryName + "\" + $file.Name #reading the file as an XML doc [Xml] $xmlFile = Get-Content $path #DS SEE: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itprogeneral/thread/caa8422f-6397-4510-ba6e-e28f2d2ee0d2/ #(get-authenticodesignature C:\Windows\System32\appidpolicyconverter.exe).status -eq "valid" #Display something $xmlFile.Task.Settings.Hidden } } Thank you

  Read the article

• Task Scheduler permissions error for some jobs

  - by MaseBase

  I have recently moved to a 64-bit Windows Server 2008 R2. I setup my Scheduled Tasks to run under one user (TaskUser) specifically created for the scheduler and most run just fine. However some of them do not run under TaskUser but will for my own credentials. Here is the Event Log entry I found, which from my research points me to believe that it doesn't have permissions, but it does. It also has the option "Run with highest privileges" checked on. I have seen this particular checkbox work wonders on some tasks, but I have a number of them that it's not helping for. The error is ERROR_ELEVATION_REQUIRED but the user is a member of the administrators group and has folder/file permission and is set to "Run with highest privileges" Log Name: Microsoft-Windows-UAC/Operational Source: Microsoft-Windows-UAC Date: 4/27/2010 2:21:44 PM Event ID: 1 Task Category: (1) Level: Error Keywords: User: LIVE\TaskUser Computer: www2 Description: The process failed to handle ERROR_ELEVATION_REQUIRED during the creation of a child process. Event Xml: <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> <System> <Provider Name="Microsoft-Windows-UAC" Guid="{E7558269-3FA5-46ED-9F4D-3C6E282DDE55}" /> <EventID>1</EventID> <Version>0</Version> <Level>2</Level> <Task>1</Task> <Opcode>0</Opcode> <Keywords>0x8000000000000000</Keywords> <TimeCreated SystemTime="2010-04-27T21:21:44.407053800Z" /> <EventRecordID>19</EventRecordID> <Correlation /> <Execution ProcessID="2460" ThreadID="5960" /> <Channel>Microsoft-Windows-UAC/Operational</Channel> <Computer>www2</Computer> <Security UserID="S-1-5-21-4017510424-2083581016-1307463562-1640" /> </System> <EventData></EventData> </Event> The errors shown in the Task Scheduler History tab display these results and states This operation requires an interactive window station. (0x800705B3) EventID 103 Task Scheduler failed to launch action "F:\App\Path\ConsoleApp.exe" in instance "{1a6d3450-b85a-40c0-b3db-72b98c1aa395}" of task "\taskFolder\taskName". Additional Data: Error Value: 2147943859. EventID 203 Task Scheduler failed to start instance "{1a6d3450-b85a-40c0-b3db-72b98c1aa395}" of "\taskFolder\taskName" task for user "LIVE\TaskUser" . Additional Data: Error Value: 2147943859.

  Read the article

• Parallelism in .NET – Part 18, Task Continuations with Multiple Tasks

  - by Reed

  In my introduction to Task continuations I demonstrated how the Task class provides a more expressive alternative to traditional callbacks.  Task continuations provide a much cleaner syntax to traditional callbacks, but there are other reasons to switch to using continuations… Task continuations provide a clean syntax, and a very simple, elegant means of synchronizing asynchronous method results with the user interface.  In addition, continuations provide a very simple, elegant means of working with collections of tasks. Prior to .NET 4, working with multiple related asynchronous method calls was very tricky.  If, for example, we wanted to run two asynchronous operations, followed by a single method call which we wanted to run when the first two methods completed, we’d have to program all of the handling ourselves.  We would likely need to take some approach such as using a shared callback which synchronized against a common variable, or using a WaitHandle shared within the callbacks to allow one to wait for the second.  Although this could be accomplished easily enough, it requires manually placing this handling into every algorithm which requires this form of blocking.  This is error prone, difficult, and can easily lead to subtle bugs. Similar to how the Task class static methods providing a way to block until multiple tasks have completed, TaskFactory contains static methods which allow a continuation to be scheduled upon the completion of multiple tasks: TaskFactory.ContinueWhenAll. This allows you to easily specify a single delegate to run when a collection of tasks has completed.  For example, suppose we have a class which fetches data from the network.  This can be a long running operation, and potentially fail in certain situations, such as a server being down.  As a result, we have three separate servers which we will “query” for our information.  Now, suppose we want to grab data from all three servers, and verify that the results are the same from all three. With traditional asynchronous programming in .NET, this would require using three separate callbacks, and managing the synchronization between the various operations ourselves.  The Task and TaskFactory classes simplify this for us, allowing us to write: var server1 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(firstServer) ); var server2 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(secondServer) ); var server3 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(thirdServer) ); var result = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll( new[] {server1, server2, server3 }, (tasks) => { // Propogate exceptions (see below) Task.WaitAll(tasks); return this.CompareTaskResults( tasks[0].Result, tasks[1].Result, tasks[2].Result); }); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } This is clean, simple, and elegant.  The one complication is the Task.WaitAll(tasks); statement. Although the continuation will not complete until all three tasks (server1, server2, and server3) have completed, there is a potential snag.  If the networkClass.GetResults method fails, and raises an exception, we want to make sure to handle it cleanly.  By using Task.WaitAll, any exceptions raised within any of our original tasks will get wrapped into a single AggregateException by the WaitAll method, providing us a simplified means of handling the exceptions.  If we wait on the continuation, we can trap this AggregateException, and handle it cleanly.  Without this line, it’s possible that an exception could remain uncaught and unhandled by a task, which later might trigger a nasty UnobservedTaskException.  This would happen any time two of our original tasks failed. Just as we can schedule a continuation to occur when an entire collection of tasks has completed, we can just as easily setup a continuation to run when any single task within a collection completes.  If, for example, we didn’t need to compare the results of all three network locations, but only use one, we could still schedule three tasks.  We could then have our completion logic work on the first task which completed, and ignore the others.  This is done via TaskFactory.ContinueWhenAny: var server1 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(firstServer) ); var server2 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(secondServer) ); var server3 = Task.Factory.StartNew( () => networkClass.GetResults(thirdServer) ); var result = Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAny( new[] {server1, server2, server3 }, (firstTask) => { return this.ProcessTaskResult(firstTask.Result); }); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Here, instead of working with all three tasks, we’re just using the first task which finishes.  This is very useful, as it allows us to easily work with results of multiple operations, and “throw away” the others.  However, you must take care when using ContinueWhenAny to properly handle exceptions.  At some point, you should always wait on each task (or use the Task.Result property) in order to propogate any exceptions raised from within the task.  Failing to do so can lead to an UnobservedTaskException.

  Read the article

• Task Scheduler Disable Google Updater Error

  - by muntoo

  Whenever I try to disable GoogleUpdateTaskUser in Vista using Task Scheduler, I get the following: --------------------------- Task Scheduler --------------------------- Not enough quota is available to process this command.GoogleUpdateTaskMachineUA --------------------------- OK --------------------------- After clicking OK: --------------------------- Task Scheduler --------------------------- This task could not be modified as requested. --------------------------- OK --------------------------- I tried this with all the "GoogleUpdate" stuff you can see in the picture below. Any ideas? THIS confirms it should work.

  Read the article

• Creating a task that runs at incorrect login credentials

  - by GDA

  I'm trying to set up a personalized security option on my computer to take a picture using the webcam whenever someone tries to log onto my computer using an incorrect password. I've set up the task in the task scheduler, and I can get it to pass, but then the problem begins. When the task passes, it triggers like a million times and keeps going until I disable the task. Does anybody know why it might be doing that and how to make it not?

  Read the article

• "The user account does not have permission to run this task"

  - by Ken

  I'm trying to get a scheduled task to run on Windows Server 2008. It has been working fine for months, and then hung, so I killed it, and now I can't get it to start. (In case it's not obvious, I'm not a Windows sysadmin by any stretch of the imagination. I inherited responsibility for this system, more or less.) The error it gives is: "The user account does not have permission to run this task". The task's "author" is "A". The task's "When running the task, use the following user account:" is "B". And my user is "C". All of A, B, C are members of the Administrators group, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why it thinks I don't have permissions to run this. Ideas?

  Read the article

• Windows XP Task Management: no execution

  - by Ice09

  Hi, we used the following scenario sucessfully over a long period of time: Remotely log onto a Win XP server, which is used by one user most/all of time Schedule a task using the "task planner" Task was run at "almost" each scheduled point of time (seldom it did not start, presumably when someone else was logged in). For some time now, we share the server with several users. Even though I checked an option for running independently of the logged in user, this option does not seem to work. Now, the task is seldom executed, not seldom not executed. Now, the question is: is there some other option I can't see which disables the execution OR, even better, is there some other tool which we can use for task scheduling on Win XP servers with several different users?

  Read the article

• Understanding C# async / await (2) Awaitable / Awaiter Pattern

  - by Dixin

  What is awaitable Part 1 shows that any Task is awaitable. Actually there are other awaitable types. Here is an example: Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => 0); int result = await task.ConfigureAwait(false); // Returns a ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult>. The returned ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult> struct is awaitable. And it is not Task at all: public struct ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult> { private readonly ConfiguredTaskAwaiter m_configuredTaskAwaiter; internal ConfiguredTaskAwaitable(Task<TResult> task, bool continueOnCapturedContext) { this.m_configuredTaskAwaiter = new ConfiguredTaskAwaiter(task, continueOnCapturedContext); } public ConfiguredTaskAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return this.m_configuredTaskAwaiter; } } It has one GetAwaiter() method. Actually in part 1 we have seen that Task has GetAwaiter() method too: public class Task { public TaskAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return new TaskAwaiter(this); } } public class Task<TResult> : Task { public new TaskAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter() { return new TaskAwaiter<TResult>(this); } } Task.Yield() is a another example: await Task.Yield(); // Returns a YieldAwaitable. The returned YieldAwaitable is not Task either: public struct YieldAwaitable { public YieldAwaiter GetAwaiter() { return default(YieldAwaiter); } } Again, it just has one GetAwaiter() method. In this article, we will look at what is awaitable. The awaitable / awaiter pattern By observing different awaitable / awaiter types, we can tell that an object is awaitable if It has a GetAwaiter() method (instance method or extension method); Its GetAwaiter() method returns an awaiter. An object is an awaiter if: It implements INotifyCompletion or ICriticalNotifyCompletion interface; It has an IsCompleted, which has a getter and returns a Boolean; it has a GetResult() method, which returns void, or a result. This awaitable / awaiter pattern is very similar to the iteratable / iterator pattern. Here is the interface definitions of iteratable / iterator: public interface IEnumerable { IEnumerator GetEnumerator(); } public interface IEnumerator { object Current { get; } bool MoveNext(); void Reset(); } public interface IEnumerable<out T> : IEnumerable { IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator(); } public interface IEnumerator<out T> : IDisposable, IEnumerator { T Current { get; } } In case you are not familiar with the out keyword, please find out the explanation in Understanding C# Covariance And Contravariance (2) Interfaces. The “missing” IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces Similar to IEnumerable and IEnumerator interfaces, awaitable / awaiter can be visualized by IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces too. This is the non-generic version: public interface IAwaitable { IAwaiter GetAwaiter(); } public interface IAwaiter : INotifyCompletion // or ICriticalNotifyCompletion { // INotifyCompletion has one method: void OnCompleted(Action continuation); // ICriticalNotifyCompletion implements INotifyCompletion, // also has this method: void UnsafeOnCompleted(Action continuation); bool IsCompleted { get; } void GetResult(); } Please notice GetResult() returns void here. Task.GetAwaiter() / TaskAwaiter.GetResult() is of such case. And this is the generic version: public interface IAwaitable<out TResult> { IAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter(); } public interface IAwaiter<out TResult> : INotifyCompletion // or ICriticalNotifyCompletion { bool IsCompleted { get; } TResult GetResult(); } Here the only difference is, GetResult() return a result. Task<TResult>.GetAwaiter() / TaskAwaiter<TResult>.GetResult() is of this case. Please notice .NET does not define these IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces at all. As an UI designer, I guess the reason is, IAwaitable interface will constraint GetAwaiter() to be instance method. Actually C# supports both GetAwaiter() instance method and GetAwaiter() extension method. Here I use these interfaces only for better visualizing what is awaitable / awaiter. Now, if looking at above ConfiguredTaskAwaitable / ConfiguredTaskAwaiter, YieldAwaitable / YieldAwaiter, Task / TaskAwaiter pairs again, they all “implicitly” implement these “missing” IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces. In the next part, we will see how to implement awaitable / awaiter. Await any function / action In C# await cannot be used with lambda. This code: int result = await (() => 0); will cause a compiler error: Cannot await 'lambda expression' This is easy to understand because this lambda expression (() => 0) may be a function or a expression tree. Obviously we mean function here, and we can tell compiler in this way: int result = await new Func<int>(() => 0); It causes an different error: Cannot await 'System.Func<int>' OK, now the compiler is complaining the type instead of syntax. With the understanding of the awaitable / awaiter pattern, Func<TResult> type can be easily made into awaitable. GetAwaiter() instance method, using IAwaitable / IAwaiter interfaces First, similar to above ConfiguredTaskAwaitable<TResult>, a FuncAwaitable<TResult> can be implemented to wrap Func<TResult>: internal struct FuncAwaitable<TResult> : IAwaitable<TResult> { private readonly Func<TResult> function; public FuncAwaitable(Func<TResult> function) { this.function = function; } public IAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter() { return new FuncAwaiter<TResult>(this.function); } } FuncAwaitable<TResult> wrapper is used to implement IAwaitable<TResult>, so it has one instance method, GetAwaiter(), which returns a IAwaiter<TResult>, which wraps that Func<TResult> too. FuncAwaiter<TResult> is used to implement IAwaiter<TResult>: public struct FuncAwaiter<TResult> : IAwaiter<TResult> { private readonly Task<TResult> task; public FuncAwaiter(Func<TResult> function) { this.task = new Task<TResult>(function); this.task.Start(); } bool IAwaiter<TResult>.IsCompleted { get { return this.task.IsCompleted; } } TResult IAwaiter<TResult>.GetResult() { return this.task.Result; } void INotifyCompletion.OnCompleted(Action continuation) { new Task(continuation).Start(); } } Now a function can be awaited in this way: int result = await new FuncAwaitable<int>(() => 0); GetAwaiter() extension method As IAwaitable shows, all that an awaitable needs is just a GetAwaiter() method. In above code, FuncAwaitable<TResult> is created as a wrapper of Func<TResult> and implements IAwaitable<TResult>, so that there is a  GetAwaiter() instance method. If a GetAwaiter() extension method  can be defined for Func<TResult>, then FuncAwaitable<TResult> is no longer needed: public static class FuncExtensions { public static IAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter<TResult>(this Func<TResult> function) { return new FuncAwaiter<TResult>(function); } } So a Func<TResult> function can be directly awaited: int result = await new Func<int>(() => 0); Using the existing awaitable / awaiter - Task / TaskAwaiter Remember the most frequently used awaitable / awaiter - Task / TaskAwaiter. With Task / TaskAwaiter, FuncAwaitable / FuncAwaiter are no longer needed: public static class FuncExtensions { public static TaskAwaiter<TResult> GetAwaiter<TResult>(this Func<TResult> function) { Task<TResult> task = new Task<TResult>(function); task.Start(); return task.GetAwaiter(); // Returns a TaskAwaiter<TResult>. } } Similarly, with this extension method: public static class ActionExtensions { public static TaskAwaiter GetAwaiter(this Action action) { Task task = new Task(action); task.Start(); return task.GetAwaiter(); // Returns a TaskAwaiter. } } an action can be awaited as well: await new Action(() => { }); Now any function / action can be awaited: await new Action(() => HelperMethods.IO()); // or: await new Action(HelperMethods.IO); If function / action has parameter(s), closure can be used: int arg0 = 0; int arg1 = 1; int result = await new Action(() => HelperMethods.IO(arg0, arg1)); Using Task.Run() The above code is used to demonstrate how awaitable / awaiter can be implemented. Because it is a common scenario to await a function / action, so .NET provides a built-in API: Task.Run(): public class Task2 { public static Task Run(Action action) { // The implementation is similar to: Task task = new Task(action); task.Start(); return task; } public static Task<TResult> Run<TResult>(Func<TResult> function) { // The implementation is similar to: Task<TResult> task = new Task<TResult>(function); task.Start(); return task; } } In reality, this is how we await a function: int result = await Task.Run(() => HelperMethods.IO(arg0, arg1)); and await a action: await Task.Run(() => HelperMethods.IO());

  Read the article

• Does a person's day-to-day neatness (outside of programming) relate to quality and organization in programming?

  - by jiceo

  Before anyone jumps into any conclusion, I had a discussion with a friend (who's not a programmer at all) about the relationship between a person's neatness habit and the degree of neatness generally shown in works by the same person. This led me to think about this situation: Let's imagine you knew a programmer whose house was very messy. This person's lifestyle is messy by nature. On his desk there are books, papers, STUFF, piled everywhere including on the floor, mixed with dirty clothing, with no obvious organization at all. If you asked him to find a book he hasn't touched for at least a week from the cluster of chaos, he would take at least an hour to do so. How likely is it that he will produce very clean, consistent, and organized code that other people can use? Are there CS legends that are/were notoriously messy in day-to-day habits?

  Read the article

• Github Organization Repositories, Issues, Multiple Developers, and Forking - Best Workflow Practices

  - by Jim Rubenstein

  A weird title, yes, but I've got a bit of ground to cover I think. We have an organization account on github with private repositories. We want to use github's native issues/pull-requests features (pull requests are basically exactly what we want as far as code reviews and feature discussions). We found the tool hub by defunkt which has a cool little feature of being able to convert an existing issue to a pull request, and automatically associate your current branch with it. I'm wondering if it is best practice to have each developer in the organization fork the organization's repository to do their feature work/bug fixes/etc. This seems like a pretty solid work flow (as, it's basically what every open source project on github does) but we want to be sure that we can track issues and pull requests from ONE source, the organization's repository. So I have a few questions: Is a fork-per-developer approach appropriate in this case? It seems like it could be a little overkill. I'm not sure that we need a fork for every developer, unless we introduce developers who don't have direct push access and need all their code reviewed. In which case, we would want to institute a policy like that, for those developers only. So, which is better? All developers in a single repository, or a fork for everyone? Does anyone have experience with the hub tool, specifically the pull-request feature? If we do a fork-per-developer (or even for less-privileged devs) will the pull-request feature of hub operate on the pull requests from the upstream master repository (the organization's repository?) or does it have different behavior? EDIT I did some testing with issues, forks, and pull requests and found that. If you create an issue on your organization's repository, then fork the repository from your organization to your own github account, do some changes, merge to your fork's master branch. When you try to run hub -i <issue #> you get an error, User is not authorized to modify the issue. So, apparently that work flow won't work.

  Read the article

• Task management algorithm in C#

  - by silverwizz

  Hi guys, i am looking for efficient task management fo C# what i mean by task management is executing pre-defined interval time of task. Example: task a needs to be run every 1 mins task b needs to be run every 3 mins task c needs to be run every 5 mins these tasks can be added and removed in arbitary time... And the task that i mentioned can be 100000 or more... The task will bw executed forever until it is removed... Do u guys familiar with this kind of algorithm? I am thinking to implement in either c# or php.... Thanks

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >