How do I immediately return a result from a task

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

In a base class, I am trying to create a default implementation for a function returning Task<string>. I can work out how to do this 'long-hand' but I can't help thinking there is a neater way of writing this.

This is my current version:

protected virtual async Task<string> MyFunction()
{
    await Task.Delay( 0 );
    return "";
}

What I have tried:

I thought I might be able to use TaskCompletionSource or Task.FromResult() but don't seem to be able to work out a syntax for these. When using the latter, I can't get round a message that tells me I should be returning a string, not a Task<string>.

Posted 1-Oct-19 1:01am

Patrick Skelton

Updated 1-Oct-19 1:18am

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Richard Deeming · Accepted Answer · 2019-10-01T01:16:00

Solution 1

Simple - just remove the async keyword:

C#

protected virtual Task<string> MyFunction()
{
    return Task.FromResult(string.Empty);
}

If your task completes synchronously most of the time, you might want to consider using ValueTask instead.

Understanding the Whys, Whats, and Whens of ValueTask | .NET Blog[^]

Posted 1-Oct-19 1:16am

Richard Deeming

Updated 1-Oct-19 1:17am

v2

Comments

Patrick Skelton 1-Oct-19 7:24am

Wasn't aware of ValueTask at all, so I've learnt two things! Thank you, Richard.

#realJSOP 1-Oct-19 7:54am

Yep, this is the answer. My approach doesn't inherit well. At all. :)

#realJSOP · Accepted Answer · 2019-10-01T01:18:00

Solution 2

You can just return String.Empty without doing the await. Of course, that would make the method synchronous (because there's no await statement), but I don't see that as a bad thing if it's merely a default implementation.

Posted 1-Oct-19 1:18am

#realJSOP

Updated 1-Oct-19 1:19am

v2

Comments

Patrick Skelton 1-Oct-19 7:23am

Doesn't that mean you are forever stuck with the compiler warning telling you that the task will complete synchronously?

#realJSOP 1-Oct-19 7:27am

Not if you turn off that warning for that method:

#pragma warning disable CS1633,CS1998
public async Task<string>....
{
}
#pragma warning restore CS1633,CS1998

Patrick Skelton 1-Oct-19 7:30am

Not fond of turning off warnings (since in my case, the warning is usually right and I've got my brain in neutral), but thanks for the reply.

#realJSOP 1-Oct-19 7:36am

You can do it around just the offending method (I cahnged my reply to illustrate). Of course, you can put await in the method and be done with it.

#realJSOP 1-Oct-19 7:37am

And, the language gives you the #pramga directive just for situations like this. I don't use them either unless necessary. In this case, it's a do-nothing default implementation of a method. It ain't gonna hurt anything...

#realJSOP 1-Oct-19 7:39am

Your other option is to make the class that contains the default implementation an abstract class, and make the method abstract.