747

Under what scenarios would one want to use

public async Task AsyncMethod(int num)

instead of

public async void AsyncMethod(int num)

The only scenario that I can think of is if you need the task to be able to track its progress.

Additionally, in the following method, are the async and await keywords unnecessary?

public static async void AsyncMethod2(int num)
{
    await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Thread.Sleep(num));
}
6
  • 47
    @Fred Mostly, but not always. This is just the convention and the accepted exceptions to this convention are with event based classes or interface contracts, see MSDN. For example, you shouldn’t rename common event handlers, such as Button1_Click.
    – Ben
    Commented Jun 16, 2016 at 12:09
  • 19
    Just a note you shouldn't using Thread.Sleep with your tasks you should await Task.Delay(num) instead
    – Bob Vale
    Commented Apr 7, 2017 at 11:01
  • 80
    @fred I dont agree with this, IMO adding an async suffix should only be used when you are providing an interface with both sync and async options. Smurf naming things with async when there is only one intent is pointless. Case in point Task.Delay is not Task.AsyncDelay as all the methods on task are Async
    – undefined
    Commented Apr 30, 2017 at 23:35
  • 20
    I had an interesting issue this morning with a webapi 2 controller method, it was declared as async void instead async Task. The method crashed because it was using an Entity Framework context object declared as a member of the controller was disposed before the method finished to execute. The framework disposed the controller before its method finished to execute. I changed the method to async Task and it worked.
    – boggy
    Commented May 26, 2017 at 17:51
  • 2
    I think this link helps.
    – Milad
    Commented Jul 3, 2017 at 7:53

6 Answers 6

583
  1. Normally, you would want to return a Task. The main exception should be when you need to have a void return type (for events). If there's no reason to disallow having the caller await your task, why disallow it?

  2. async methods that return void are special in another aspect: they represent top-level async operations, and have additional rules that come into play when your task returns an exception. The easiest way is to show the difference is with an example:

static async void f()
{
    await h();
}

static async Task g()
{
    await h();
}

static async Task h()
{
    throw new NotImplementedException();
}

private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
    f();
}

private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
    g();
}

private void button3_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
    GC.Collect();
}

f's exception is always "observed". An exception that leaves a top-level asynchronous method is simply treated like any other unhandled exception. g's exception is never observed. When the garbage collector comes to clean up the task, it sees that the task resulted in an exception, and nobody handled the exception. When that happens, the TaskScheduler.UnobservedTaskException handler runs. You should never let this happen. To use your example,

public static async void AsyncMethod2(int num)
{
    await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Thread.Sleep(num));
}

Yes, use async and await here, they make sure your method still works correctly if an exception is thrown.

For more information see: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2013/march/async-await-best-practices-in-asynchronous-programming

18
  • 13
    I meant f instead of g in my comment. The exception from f is passed to the SynchronizationContext. g will raise UnobservedTaskException, but UTE no longer crashes the process if it's not handled. There are some situations where it's acceptable to have "asynchronous exceptions" like this that are ignored. Commented Aug 28, 2012 at 13:07
  • 3
    If you have WhenAny with multiple Tasks resulting in exceptions. You often only have to handle the first one, and you often want to ignore the others. Commented Aug 28, 2012 at 13:29
  • 1
    @StephenCleary Thanks, I guess that's a good example, although it depends on the reason you call WhenAny in the first place whether it's okay to ignore the other exceptions: the main use case I have for it still ends up awaiting the remaining tasks when any finishes, with or without an exception.
    – user743382
    Commented Aug 28, 2012 at 13:41
  • 23
    I'm a little confused as to why you recommend returning a Task instead of void. Like you said, f() will throw and exception but g() will not. Isn't it best to be made aware of these background thread exceptions?
    – user981225
    Commented Aug 28, 2012 at 17:41
  • 2
    @user981225 Indeed, but that then becomes the responsibility of g's caller: every method that calls g should be async and use await too. This is a guideline, not a hard rule, you can decide that in your specific program, it's easier to have g return void.
    – user743382
    Commented Aug 28, 2012 at 20:12
80

The problem with calling async void is that

you don’t even get the task back. You have no way of knowing when the function’s task has completed. —— Crash course in async and await | The Old New Thing

Here are the three ways to call an async function:

async Task<T> SomethingAsync() { ... return t; }
async Task SomethingAsync() { ... }
async void SomethingAsync() { ... }

In all the cases, the function is transformed into a chain of tasks. The difference is what the function returns.

In the first case, the function returns a task that eventually produces the t.

In the second case, the function returns a task which has no product, but you can still await on it to know when it has run to completion.

The third case is the nasty one. The third case is like the second case, except that you don't even get the task back. You have no way of knowing when the function's task has completed.

The async void case is a "fire and forget": You start the task chain, but you don't care about when it's finished. When the function returns, all you know is that everything up to the first await has executed. Everything after the first await will run at some unspecified point in the future that you have no access to.

67

I have come across this very useful article about async and void written by Jérôme Laban: https://jaylee.org/archive/2012/07/08/c-sharp-async-tips-and-tricks-part-2-async-void.html

The bottom line is that an async+void can crash the system and usually should be used only on the UI side event handlers.

The reason behind this is the Synchronization Context used by the AsyncVoidMethodBuilder, being none in this example. When there is no ambient Synchronization Context, any exception that is unhandled by the body of an async void method is rethrown on the ThreadPool. While there is seemingly no other logical place where that kind of unhandled exception could be thrown, the unfortunate effect is that the process is being terminated, because unhandled exceptions on the ThreadPool effectively terminate the process since .NET 2.0. You may intercept all unhandled exception using the AppDomain.UnhandledException event, but there is no way to recover the process from this event.

When writing UI event handlers, async void methods are somehow painless because exceptions are treated the same way found in non-async methods; they are thrown on the Dispatcher. There is a possibility to recover from such exceptions, with is more than correct for most cases. Outside of UI event handlers however, async void methods are somehow dangerous to use and may not that easy to find.

1
  • Is that correct? I thought exceptions inside async methods are captured within Task. And also afaik there's always a deafault SynchronizationContext
    – N. M.
    Commented Aug 30, 2019 at 20:42
15

I think you can use async void for kicking off background operations as well, so long as you're careful to catch exceptions. Thoughts?

class Program {

    static bool isFinished = false;

    static void Main(string[] args) {

        // Kick off the background operation and don't care about when it completes
        BackgroundWork();

        Console.WriteLine("Press enter when you're ready to stop the background operation.");
        Console.ReadLine();
        isFinished = true;
    }

    // Using async void to kickoff a background operation that nobody wants to be notified about when it completes.
    static async void BackgroundWork() {
        // It's important to catch exceptions so we don't crash the appliation.
        try {
            // This operation will end after ten interations or when the app closes. Whichever happens first.
            for (var count = 1; count <= 10 && !isFinished; count++) {
                await Task.Delay(1000);
                Console.WriteLine($"{count} seconds of work elapsed.");
            }
            Console.WriteLine("Background operation came to an end.");
        } catch (Exception x) {
            Console.WriteLine("Caught exception:");
            Console.WriteLine(x.ToString());
        }
    }
}
6
  • 4
    The problem with calling async void is that you don’t even get the task back, you have no way of knowing when the function’s task has completed Commented Jun 19, 2018 at 15:27
  • 2
    This does make sense for (rare) background operations where you don't care about the result and you don't want an exception to affect other operations. A typical use case would be sending a log event to a log server. You want this to happen in the background, and you don't want your service / request handler to fail if the log server is down. Of course, you have to catch all exceptions, or your process will be terminated. Or is there a better way to achieve this? Commented Aug 27, 2018 at 8:57
  • 1
    Exceptions from an Async Void Method Can’t Be Caught with Catch. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/jj991977.aspx
    – Si Zi
    Commented Oct 16, 2018 at 11:43
  • 8
    @SiZi the catch is INSIDE the async void method as shown in the example and it is caught.
    – bboyle1234
    Commented Oct 16, 2018 at 21:34
  • 1
    What about when your requirements change to require doing no work if you cant log it - then you have to change the signatures in your whole API, instead of just changing the logic which currently has // Ignore Exception
    – Milney
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 18:44
10

A brief explanation:
async Task<T> method() await can be used to wait till the execution is completed and it will return value of type T
async Task method() await can be used to wait till the execution is completed but no data is returned
async void method() can't be awaited and no data is returned [Example: async event execution]

-6

My answer is simple you can not await void method

Error   CS4008  Cannot await 'void' TestAsync   e:\test\TestAsync\TestAsyncProgram.cs

So if the method is async, it is better to be awaitable, because you can lose the advantage ofasync.

2
  • the void async method used for event handlers. So its necessary to use async where you don't want to wait for the completion. Commented Jul 15, 2022 at 16:30
  • @shanavascet then what is difference beetwen classic void method and void task?
    – zeroG
    Commented Nov 8, 2022 at 1:58

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.