I'm currently reading "Concurrency in C# Cookbook" by Stephen Cleary, and I noticed the following technique:
var completedTask = await Task.WhenAny(downloadTask, timeoutTask);
if (completedTask == timeoutTask)
return null;
return await downloadTask;
downloadTask
is a call to httpclient.GetStringAsync
, and timeoutTask
is executing Task.Delay
.
In the event that it didn't timeout, then downloadTask
is already completed. Why is necessary to do a second await instead of returning downloadTask.Result
, given that the task is already completed?
There are already some good answers/comments here, but just to chime in...
There are two reasons why I prefer await
over Result
(or Wait
). The first is that the error handling is different; await
does not wrap the exception in an AggregateException
. Ideally, asynchronous code should never have to deal with AggregateException
at all, unless it specifically wants to.
The second reason is a little more subtle. As I describe on my blog (and in the book), Result
/Wait
can cause deadlocks, and can cause even more subtle deadlocks when used in an async
method. So, when I'm reading through code and I see a Result
or Wait
, that's an immediate warning flag. The Result
/Wait
is only correct if you're absolutely sure that the task is already completed. Not only is this hard to see at a glance (in real-world code), but it's also more brittle to code changes.
That's not to say that Result
/Wait
should never be used. I follow these guidelines in my own code:
await
.Result
/Wait
if the code really calls for it. Such usage should probably have comments.Result
and Wait
.Note that (1) is by far the common case, hence my tendency to use await
everywhere and treat the other cases as exceptions to the general rule.