Should ConfigureAwait(false) be called in NancyHost?

[xt0rted]

While looking through the code and using the ReSharper ConfigureAwait Checker plugin I came across Nancy.Hosting.Self/NancyHost.cs#L133-134.

Should line 133 and/or 134 call .ConfigureAwait(false)? The other warning I'm getting is on line 134 because it's not awaited but I wasn't sure if that should be or not.

Those are the only two spots outside of the test projects that don't call ConfigureAwait.

[aidapsibr]

Since NancyHost is the consumer of the task it does need to capture context.

[thecodejunkie]

@khellang @damianh @grumpydev

[damianh]

Probably should be called from everywhere.

Explicit or assembly rewrite with a Fody plugin?

On 25 Aug 2016 12:51 p.m., "Andreas Håkansson" [email protected]
wrote:

@khellang https://github.com/khellang @damianh
https://github.com/damianh @grumpydev https://github.com/grumpydev

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#2471 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgXNGXUvhA1_ukmq0UdHjK25k1thVKks5qjYHOgaJpZM4Ipc5S
.

[horsdal]

I think line 133 should have a CAF.
Basically every await outside of tests should have a CAF AFAIK.

[thecodejunkie]

Been out of the loop a bit, but would adding that ConfigureAwait call fix #2534 ?

[jchannon]

What if you host by something else?

On 30 August 2016 at 12:41, Andreas Håkansson [email protected]
wrote:

Been out of the loop a bit, but would adding that ConfigureAwait call fix
#2534 #2534 ?

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#2471 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGaprHexEiti95Sm36yjkIm-kZVeZlPks5qlBb7gaJpZM4Ipc5S
.

[thecodejunkie]

Well Nancy is a library and if you consume it yourself you are subjected to following the laws of async, thus making sure you properly do your own ConfigureAwait-handling. Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way?

[damianh]

You are thinking about this in the correct way :)

[thecodejunkie]

@damianh so we should get this in, right?

[damianh]

Yep!

On 30 Aug 2016 2:45 p.m., "Andreas Håkansson" [email protected]
wrote:

@damianh https://github.com/damianh so we should get this in, right?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#2471 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgXAXWJHLsU8hmOdflob1K6rQngM1jks5qlCXWgaJpZM4Ipc5S
.

[thecodejunkie]

Oh wait.. this is an issue, not a pull-request.. @xt0rted mind sending a PR and I'll get it in asap?