Diagnostics namespace , so include the following using directive for simplicity:. No errors just doesnt run There are some notes at the bottom of this MSDN doc msdn. To avoid any deadlocks and collect up all output from both StandardOutput and StandardError you can do this:. Sign up using Email and Password. The process is dwwin.
Examples. See the code example for the ExitCode property. Remarks. WaitForExit(Int32) makes the current thread wait until the associated process terminates. It should be called after all other methods are called on the process. To avoid blocking the current thread, use the Exited event.
Richard Deeming Mar Yes, you'd still need a timer to trigger the process on a schedule. That would let you process the files as they were created, rather than checking for new files every few seconds. But is FileSystemWatcher realy safe? From expirience I will not trust on it for e. Richard Deeming Mar 5: I don't tend to use it on network paths, but on local paths it seems to be fairly safe.
The only time it has problems is if the event handler takes too long and the queue fills up. I tried using this code but it seems Im missing something.
BackGroundWorker is not present it seems. Lower-case "g" , and it's in the System. If you're using a Windows Forms project, you'll need to drag one from the toolbox onto your form, name it backgroundWorker , set the WorkerReportsProgress property to true , and wire up the two event handlers.
Still can not get it to run. No errors just doesnt run RunWorkerAsync ; You're not passing in a list of files to process. If you debug your code, you'll see that string e. Argument returns null , and the following line throws a NullReferenceException.
Compare that to the code I posted: Never play with the UI thread here The IsBusy property is always going to return true within the DoWork event handler, so I don't see how your loop would ever execute. Its like the waitfor exit doesnt work so it tries to delete the file while storescu is sending the file.
Not sure how to fix that. Thats why I was trying the Isbusy. If the class you're using implements a "Close" method that doesn't do all the same things as "Dispose", Close should either be documented as such or there's a bug in the class.
I've never encountered a framework class that implements IDisposable and a Close method that introduced a "leak" when Close was called without calling Dispose. In fact this is detailed in the. For example, a file encapsulation might want to use the method name Close. In this case, implement Dispose privately and create a public Close method that calls Dispose.
The following code example illustrates this pattern. You can replace Close with a method name appropriate to your domain. As well as "For certain classes of objects, such as files or database connection objects, a Close method better represents the logical operation that should be performed when the object's consumer is finished with the object. I assumed your application was generating the message in which case you should always get an exception and a stack trace ; it wasn't clear that you resume after the call to WaitForExit.
It sounds to me like the application you're running is terminating abnormally. Are you running devenv. I'm not sure what you can do in your application to stop another application from terminating abnormally. Hence the reason why I kept stating that it is was not an exception and that my code still funcitoned the rest of the way to completion, as expected.
I wil try it tomorrow remoting on a non-Japanese machine at work and I will post my findings regardless. Friday, October 26, 2: If yes then you have to type exit also. Friday, October 26, 4: Try disabling the output redirection and see if the process exits. Give it a try, it might work. Friday, October 26, Thank you for your help, but I am getting really frustrated with this problem. Friday, October 26, 3: Without knowing the detail of the message we're just guessing at the problem Close ; Why are you doing this?
WaitForExit ; Is this a typo? Before you were talking about a variable named "proc", not "Proc". So is this simply a null reference because you're trying to invoke a method on a different reference than "proc"?
Do you have the stack trace from that error message? The Proc was a type, it should have been proc. Friday, October 26, 5: Join " ", args ; info. Start info ; p. Kara 3, 10 41 I run into same issue and this how I was able to solve it stackoverflow. It's in the manual. The code example avoids a deadlock condition by calling p. A deadlock condition can result if the parent process calls p. ReadToEnd and the child process writes enough text to fill the redirected stream.
The parent process would wait indefinitely for the child process to exit. The child process would wait indefinitely for the parent to read from the full StandardOutput stream. Whatever order you use, there can be a problem: If you wait for the process to exit before reading StandardOutput the process can block trying to write to it, so the process never ends.
If you read from StandardOutput using ReadToEnd then your process can block if the process never closes StandardOutput for example if it never terminates, or if it is blocked writing to StandardError. To avoid any deadlocks and collect up all output from both StandardOutput and StandardError you can do this: BeginErrorReadLine ; if process.
Mark Byers k Had no idea redirecting the output was causing the issue but sure enough it was. Spent 4 hours pounding my head on this and fixed it in 5 minutes after reading your post. An unhandled exception of type"System. ObjectDisposed" occurred in mscorlib. We had a similar problem as described by user above.
Do you think it is possible that using statements for the event handlers need to be above the using statement for the process itself? I don't think the wait handles are needed. As per msdn, just finish off with the non-timeout version of WaitForExit: When standard output has been redirected to asynchronous event handlers, it is possible that output processing will not have completed when this method returns.
To ensure that asynchronous event handling has been completed, call the WaitForExit overload that takes no parameter after receiving a true from this overload. StandardOutput says to read before you wait otherwise you can deadlock, snippet copied below: I was in a similar situation.
I was redirecting StandardError for no reason when converting with ffmpeg in a process, it was writting enough in the StandardError stream to create a deadlock. This still hangs for me even with redirecting and reading standard output. FYI I had to add this caveat as an answer as I couldn't comment on his post. Perhaps it would be better to call CancelOutputRead?
Adding Mark's edited code to this answer would be rather awesome! I am having the exact same issue at the minute. Apr 3 '13 at In such case the other parts of the condition: WaitOne timeout are not executed. I resolved this problem in a following way: WaitOne timeout ; errorWaitHandle. Karol Tyl 1 8. Why have you changed output and error to outputBuilder? Can someone please provide complete answer that works?
Jon 3 CopyTo will return after ALL data is read. Serpooshan Dec 13 '17 at We have this issue as well or a variant. WaitForExit nnnn ; where nnnn is in milliseconds. WriteLine "Process Timed Out! WhenAll tasks ; return process. Muhammad Rehan Saeed Here is what worked for me:
C# (CSharp) Method instantpaydayloansbadcredit.mlrExit Code Examples This page contains top rated real world C# (CSharp) examples of method instantpaydayloansbadcredit.mlrExit extracted from open source projects. 1) Add a timeout to instantpaydayloansbadcredit.mlrExit(nnnn); where nnnn is in milliseconds. 2) Put the ReadToEnd call before the WaitForExit call. This is what we've seen MS recommend. Visual C# https: //instantpaydayloansbadcredit.ml The WaitForExit () () For example, if you call CloseMainWindow for a process that has a user interface, the request to the operating system to terminate the associated process might not be handled if the process is written to never enter its message loop.