Add .ConfigureAwait(false) on (thread) context irrelevant operations#3977
Merged
rockfordlhotka merged 4 commits intoJun 1, 2024
Merged
Conversation
rockfordlhotka
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2024
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add some .ConfigureAwait(false) to remove pressure on a sync context when available
Motivation for our WPF application:
We experience a lot of work and pressure on the UI thread due to the current handling of async calls to a remote data portal.
With this PR that should be solved because the low level operations are now free to use a thread pool thread to perform non UI related work.
The PR only adds
.ConfigureAwait(false);toawaits where the result can't be known to the UI thread.@rockfordlhotka Should we consider this a breaking change?