16f6c0aecf
Inline adoc files when they are included exactly once. Also fix language tags because this inlining gives us better information on what language the code is written in.
61 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
61 lines
2.2 KiB
Plaintext
== Why is this an issue?
|
|
|
|
After an ``++await++``ed ``++Task++`` has executed, you can continue execution in the original, calling thread or any arbitrary thread. Unless the rest of the code needs the context from which the ``++Task++`` was spawned, ``++Task.ConfigureAwait(false)++`` should be used to keep execution in the ``++Task++`` thread to avoid the need for context switching and the possibility of deadlocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This rule raises an issue when code in a class library targeting .Net Framework ``++await++``s a ``++Task++`` and continues execution in the original calling thread.
|
|
|
|
The rule does not raise for .Net Core libraries as there is no ``++SynchronizationContext++`` in .Net Core.
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Noncompliant code example
|
|
|
|
[source,csharp]
|
|
----
|
|
var response = await httpClient.GetAsync(url); // Noncompliant
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Compliant solution
|
|
|
|
[source,csharp]
|
|
----
|
|
var response = await httpClient.GetAsync(url).ConfigureAwait(false);
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Implementation Specification
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== Message
|
|
|
|
Add ".ConfigureAwait(false)" to this call to allow execution to continue in any thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''
|
|
== Comments And Links
|
|
(visible only on this page)
|
|
|
|
=== on 1 Jul 2015, 15:40:18 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
Note [~tamas.vajk] that because I anticipate FP's from this rule, I've turned it on in the Security profile but not in SonarQube Way. Unless you're good enough to tell if execution _must_ pick back up in the main thread & ignore those instances?
|
|
|
|
=== on 2 Jul 2015, 07:02:20 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] Thanks, it looks good. We'll see the FPs: we can automatically exclude "exe" projects, ...
|
|
|
|
=== on 21 Aug 2015, 06:18:04 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] Do you think this is a security issue as well?
|
|
|
|
=== on 21 Aug 2015, 12:24:45 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] I'm kinda in a bind: Critical rules must be bugs or security-related. Since multi-threading issues can affect security, I added the security tag rather than downgrading the severity.
|
|
|
|
=== on 21 Aug 2015, 12:28:28 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] I see. It's more like a bug rule, but it is just a potential bug, so maybe we should reduce the severity to major.
|
|
|
|
=== on 21 Aug 2015, 12:50:53 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
Done [~tamas.vajk]
|
|
|
|
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]
|