I want to call qmodbusreply related monitoring function in the std thread.
void DigitalInputController::monitoring()
{
QModbusReply* reply = nullptr;
QModbusDataUnit d(QModbusDataUnit::Coils, 0, 8);
reply = m_pDevice->sendReadRequest(d, m_DeviceID);
if (reply)
{
if (!reply->isFinished())
{
connect(reply, &QModbusReply::finished, this, &DigitalInputController::receivedDigitalInputData);
}
else
{
delete reply;
}
}
}
The mainwindow source is as below.
:
:
std::thread th(&MainWindow::serialCommandQueueMonitoringThread, this);
th.detach();
for (int i=0; i<4; i++)
{
m_pPickingController[i]->m_pDigitalInputController->moveToThread(this->thread());
m_pPickingController[i]->moveToThread(this->thread());
}
:
:
void MainWindow::serialCommandQueueMonitoringThread()
{
while(!m_bCheckThreadStopFlag)
{
if (g_queueSerialCommandTypeInfo->size() > 0)
{
g_mutexSerialCommand->lock();
SerialCommandTypeInfo info = g_queueSerialCommandTypeInfo->dequeue();
g_mutexSerialCommand->unlock();
SerialCommandParamter p = info.parameter;
if (info.type == MONITORING_DIGITALINPUT)
{
m_pPickingController[p.objectIndex]->m_pDigitalInputController->monitoring();
}
}
QThread::msleep(20);
}
}
When executed, the following warning appears and the monitoring function cannot be called.
QObject: Cannot create children for a parent that is in a different thread.
(Parent is QModbusRtuSerialMaster(0x2c56de33090), parent's thread is QThread(0x2c5670790b0), current thread is QThread(0x2c56ddb6290)
QObject::startTimer: Timers can only be used with threads started with QThread
How should I do?
Related
I am trying to get multithreading more unraveled in my head. I made these three classes.
A global variable class
public partial class globes
{
public bool[] sets = new bool[] { false, false, false };
public bool boolChanged = false;
public string tmpStr = string.Empty;
public int gcount = 0;
public bool intChanged = false;
public Random r = new Random();
public bool gDone = false;
public bool first = true;
}
Drop in point
class Driver
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("start");
globes g = new globes();
Thread[] threads = new Thread[6];
ParameterizedThreadStart[] pts = new ParameterizedThreadStart[6];
lockMe _lockme = new lockMe();
for (int b = 0; b < 3; b++)
{
pts[b] = new ParameterizedThreadStart(_lockme.paramThreadStarter);
threads[b] = new Thread(pts[b]);
threads[b].Name = string.Format("{0}", b);
threads[b].Start(b);
}
}
}
And then my threading class
class lockMe
{
#region Fields
private string[] words = new string[] {"string0", "string1", "string2", "string3"};
private globes g = new globes();
private object myKey = new object();
private string[] name = new string[] { String.Empty, String.Empty, String.Empty };
#endregion
#region methods
// first called for all threads
private void setName(Int16 i)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
name[i] = string.Format("{0}:{1}", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, g.r.Next(100, 500).ToString());
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// thread 1
private void changeBool(Int16 a)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
int i = getBools();
//Thread.Sleep(3000);
if (g.gcount > 5) { g.gDone = true; return; }
if (i == 3) resets();
else { for (int x = 0; x <= i; i++) { g.sets[x] = true; } }
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} ran through changeBool()\n", name[a]);
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// thread 2
private void changeInt(Int16 i)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
g.gcount++;
//Thread.Sleep(g.r.Next(1000, 3000));
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0}: Count is now at {1}\n", name[i], g.gcount);
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// thread 3
private void printString(Int16 i)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine("...incoming...");
//Thread.Sleep(g.r.Next(1500, 2500));
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} printing...{1}\n", name[i], words[g.r.Next(0, 3)]);
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// not locked- called from within a locked peice
private int getBools()
{
if ((g.sets[0] == false) && (g.sets[1] == false) && (g.sets[2] == false)) return 0;
else if ((g.sets[0] == true) && (g.sets[1] == false) && (g.sets[2] == false)) return 1;
else if ((g.sets[2] == true) && (g.sets[3] == false)) return 2;
else if ((g.sets[0] == true) && (g.sets[1] == true) && (g.sets[2] == true)) return 3;
else return 99;
}
// should not need locks- called within locked statement
private void resets()
{
if (g.first) { Console.WriteLine("FIRST!!"); g.first = false; }
else Console.WriteLine("Cycle has reset...");
}
private bool getStatus()
{
bool x = false;
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
x = g.gDone;
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
return x;
}
#endregion
#region Constructors
public void paramThreadStarter(object starter)
{
Int16 i = Convert.ToInt16(starter);
setName(i);
do
{
switch (i)
{
default: throw new Exception();
case 0:
changeBool(i);
break;
case 1:
changeInt(i);
break;
case 2:
printString(i);
break;
}
} while (!getStatus());
Console.WriteLine("fin");
Console.ReadLine();
}
#endregion
}
So I have a few questions. The first- is it better to have my global class set like this? Or should I be using a static class with properties and altering them that way? Next question is, when this runs, at random one of the threads will run, pulse/exit the lock, and then step right back in (sometimes like 5-10 times before the next thread picks up the lock). Why does this happen?
Each thread is given a certain amount of CPU time, I doubt that one particular thread is getting more actual CPU time over the others if you are locking all the calls in the same fashion and the thread priorities are the same among the threads.
Regarding how you use your global class, it doesn't really matter. The way you are using it wouldn't change it one way or the other. Your use of globals was to test thread safety, so when multiple threads are trying to change shared properties all that matters is that you enforce thread safety.
Pulse might be a better option knowing that only one thread can actually enter, pulseAll is appropriate when you lock something because you have a task to do, once that task is complete and won't lock the very next time. In your scenario you lock every time so doing a pulseAll is just going to waste cpu because you know that it will be locked for the next request.
Common example of when to use static classes and why you must make them thread safe:
public static class StoreManager
{
private static Dictionary<string,DataStore> _cache = new Dictionary<string,DataStore>(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
private static object _syncRoot = new object();
public static DataStore Get(string storeName)
{
//this method will look for the cached DataStore, if it doesn't
//find it in cache it will load from DB.
//The thread safety issue scenario to imagine is, what if 2 or more requests for
//the same storename come in? You must make sure that only 1 thread goes to the
//the DB and all the rest wait...
//check to see if a DataStore for storeName is in the dictionary
if ( _cache.ContainsKey( storeName) == false )
{
//only threads requesting unknown DataStores enter here...
//now serialize access so only 1 thread at a time can do this...
lock(_syncRoot)
{
if (_cache.ContainsKey(storeName) == false )
{
//only 1 thread will ever create a DataStore for storeName
DataStore ds = DataStoreManager.Get(storeName); //some code here goes to DB and gets a DataStore
_cache.Add(storeName,ds);
}
}
}
return _cache[storeName];
}
}
What's really important to see is that the Get method only single threads the call when there is no DataStore for the storeName.
Double-Check-Lock:
You can see the first lock() happens after an if, so imagine 3 threads simultaneously run the if ( _cache.ContainsKey(storeName) .., now all 3 threads enter the if. Now we lock so that only 1 thread can enter, now we do the same exact if statement, only the very first thread that gets here will actually pass this if statement and get the DataStore. Once the first thread .Add's the DataStore and exits the lock the other 2 threads will fail the second check (double check).
From that point on any request for that storeName will get the cached instance.
So we single threaded our application only in the spots that required it.
I got CyclicBarrier code from oracle page to understand it more. I modified it and now having one doubt.
Below code doesn't terminate but If I uncomment Thread.sleep condition, It works fine.
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.concurrent.BrokenBarrierException;
import java.util.concurrent.CyclicBarrier;
class Solver {
final int N;
final float[][] data;
boolean done = false;
final CyclicBarrier barrier;
class Worker implements Runnable {
int myRow;
Worker(int row) {
myRow = row;
}
public void run() {
while (!done) {
processRow(myRow);
try {
barrier.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} catch (BrokenBarrierException ex) {
return;
}
}
System.out.println("Run finish for " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
private void processRow(int row) {
float[] rowData = data[row];
for (int i = 0; i < rowData.length; i++) {
rowData[i] = 1;
}
/*try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}*/
done = true;
}
}
public Solver(float[][] matrix) {
data = matrix;
N = matrix.length;
barrier = new CyclicBarrier(N, new Runnable() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
System.out.println("Data " + Arrays.toString(data[i]));
}
System.out.println("Completed:");
}
});
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
new Thread(new Worker(i), "Thread "+ i).start();
}
}
public class CyclicBarrierTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
float[][] matrix = new float[5][5];
Solver solver = new Solver(matrix);
}
}
Why Thread.sleep is required in above code?
I've not run your code but there may be a race condition, here is a scenario that reveals it:
you start the first thread, it runs during a certain amount of time sufficient for it to finish the processRow method call so it sets done to true and then waits on the barrier,
the other threads start but they see that all is "done" so they don't enter the loop and they'll never wait on the barrier, and end directly
the barrier will never be activated as only one of the N threads has reached it
deadlock
Why it is working with the sleep:
when one of the thread starts to sleep it lets the other threads work before marking the work as "done"
the other threads have enough time to work and can themselves reach the barrier
2 seconds is largely enough for 5 threads to end a processing that should not last longer than 10ms
But note that if your system is ovrerloaded it could too deadlock:
the first thread starts to sleep
the OS scheduler lets another application work during more than 2 seconds
the OS scheduler comes back to your application and the threads scheduler chooses the first thread again and lets it terminate, setting done to true
and here again the first scenario => deadlock too
And a possible solution (sorry not tested):
change your while loops for do/while loops:
do
{
processRow(myRow);
...
}
while (!done);
I have a program which has a Ui with which users choose the way to display and do small configurations. It also has a background procedure, which continuously reads data from the network and update the data to display.
Now I put them in one process:
background procedure:
STATE MainWindow::Rcv()
{
DeviceMAP::iterator dev;
for(dev= dev_map.begin(); dev!= dev_map.end(); dev++)
{
dev->second.rcvData();//receive data from the network, the time can be ignored.
BitLog* log = new BitLog();
dev->second.parseData(log);
LogItem* logItem = new LogItem();
logItem->time = QString::fromLocal8Bit(log->rcvTime.c_str());
logItem->name = QString::fromLocal8Bit(log->basicInfo.getName().c_str());
logItem->PIN = QString::fromLocal8Bit(log->basicInfo.getPIN().c_str()).toShort();
delete log;
add_logItem(logItem);
}
return SUCCESS;
}
add_logItem:
void MainWindow::add_logItem(LogItem* logItem)
{
writeToFile(logItem);
Device* r = getDevbyPIN(QString::number(logItem->PIN));
if(r == NULL)return;
devInfo_inside_widget::States state = logItem->state;
bool bool_list[portsNum_X];
for(int i =0; i < portsNum_X; i++)
{
bool_list[i] = 0;
}
for(int i = 0; i < portsNum; i++)
{
bool_list[i] = (logItem->BITS[i/8] >> (7 - i%8)) & 0x1;
}
r->refresh(state, logItem->time, bool_list);//update data inside...state, time , BITS...
IconLabel* icl = getIConLabelByDev(r);//update data
icl->refresh(state);
logDisplayQueue.enqueue(logItem);//write queue here
int size = logDisplayQueue.size();
if(size > 100)
{
logDisplayQueue.dequeue();//write queue here
}
}
The section above has not dealt with any ui operations yet, but when user push a radio button in the ui, the program has to filter the data in the queue and display it in the table widget:
ui operations:
void MainWindow::filter_log_display(bool bol)
{
row_selectable = false;
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(0);//delete table items all
row_selectable = true;
int size_1 = logDisplayQueue.size() - 1;
ui->tableWidget->verticalScrollBar()->setSliderPosition(0);
if(size_1+1 < 100)
{
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(size_1 + 1);
}
else
{
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(100);//display 100 rows at most
}
if(bol)//filter from logDisplayQueue and display unworking-state-log rows
{
int index = 0;
for(int queue_i = size_1; queue_i >= 0; queue_i--)
{
LogItem* logItem = (LogItem*)logDisplayQueue.at(queue_i); // read queue here
if(logItem->state == STATE_WORK || logItem->state == STATE_UN)continue;
QString BITS_str = bits2Hexs(logItem->BITS);
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 0, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->time));//time
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 1, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->name));//name
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 2, new QTableWidgetItem(BITS_str));//BITS
if(queue_i == oldRowItemNo)ui->tableWidget->selectRow(index);
index++;
}
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(index);
}
else//display all rows
{
for(int queue_i = size_1, index = 0; queue_i >= 0; queue_i--, index++)
{
LogItem* logItem = (LogItem*)logDisplayQueue.at(queue_i); //read queue here
QString BITS_str = bits2Hexs(logItem->BITS);//
finish = clock();
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 0, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->time));//time
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 1, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->name));//name
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 2, new QTableWidgetItem(BITS_str));//BITS
if(queue_i == oldRowItemNo)ui->tableWidget->selectRow(index);
}
}
}
So the queue is quite samll and the background procedure is quite frequent(nearly 500 times per sec). That is, the queue will be written 500 times in 1 sec, but displayed time from time by the user.
I want to split the functions into two threads and run them together, one rev and update data, one display.
If i do not use any lock or mutex, the user may get the wrong data, but if i force the write-data procedure enter critical section and leave critical section everytime, it will be a heavy overload. :)
Should I use CRITICAL_SECTION or something else, any suggestions related?(my words could be verbose for you :) , i only hope for some hints :)
I'd put "Recv" function in another QObject derived class, put it under other QThread not main gui thread and connect "logItemAdded(LogItem* item)" signal to main window's "addLogItem(LogItem* item)" slot.
for just quick and dirty hint my conceptual code follows.
#include <QObject>
class Logger : public QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
Logger(QObject* parent=0);
virtual ~Logger();
signals:
void logItemAdded(LogItem* logItem);
public slots:
protected:
void Rcv()
{
// ...
// was "add_logItem(logItem)"
emit logItemAdded(logItem);
}
};
MainWindow::MainWindow(...)
{
Logger logger = new Logger;
// setup your logger
QThread* thread = new QThread;
logger->moveToThread(thread);
connect(thread, SIGNAL(finished()), thread, SLOT(deleteLater()));
thread->start();
}
Hope this helps.
Good luck.
My somewhat data-intensive wp7 app persists data as follows: I maintain a change journal reflecting all user activity, and every couple of seconds, a thread timer spins up a threadpool thread that flushes the change journal to a database inside a transaction. It looks something like this:
When the user exits, I stop the timer, flush the journal on the UI thread (takes no more than a second or two), and dismount the DB.
However, if the worker thread is active when the user exits, I can't figure out how to react gracefully. The system seems to kill the worker thread, so it never finishes its work and never gives up its lock on the database connection, and the ui thread then attempts to acquire the lock, and is immediately killed by the system. I tried setting a flag on the UI thread requesting the worker to abort, but I think the worker was interrupted before it read the flag. Everything works fine except for this 1 in 100 scenario where some user changes end up not being saved to the db, and I can't seem to get around this.
Very simplified code below:
private Timer _SweepTimer = new Timer(SweepCallback, null, 5000, 5000);
private volatile bool _BailOut = false;
private void SweepCallback(object state) {
lock (db) {
db.startTransaction();
foreach(var entry in changeJournal){
//CRUD entry as appropriate
if(_BailOut){
db.rollbackTransaction();
return;
}
}
db.endTransaction();
changeJournal.Clear();
}
}
private void RespondToSystemExit(){
_BailOut = true; //Set flag for worker to exit
lock(db){ //In theory, should acquire the lock after the bg thread bails out
SweepCallback(null);//Flush to db on the UI thread
db.dismount();//App is now ready to close
}
}
Well, just to close this question, I ended up using a manualresetevent instead of the locking, which is to the best of my understanding a misuse of the manualresetevent, risky and hacky, but its better than nothing.
I still don't know why my original code wasn't working.
EDIT: For posterity, I'm reposting the code to reproduce this from the MS forums:
//This is a functioning console app showing the code working as it should. Press "w" and then "i" to start and then interrupt the worker
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace deadlocktest {
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
var tester = new ThreadTest();
string input = "";
while (!input.Equals("x")) {
input = Console.ReadLine();
switch (input) {
case "w":
tester.StartWorker();
break;
case "i":
tester.Interrupt();
break;
default:
return;
}
}
}
}
class ThreadTest{
private Object lockObj = new Object();
private volatile bool WorkerCancel = false;
public void StartWorker(){
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((obj) => {
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj)) {
try {
Log("Worker acquired the lock");
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++) {
Thread.Sleep(1200);
Log("Worker: tick" + x.ToString());
if (WorkerCancel) {
Log("Worker received exit signal, exiting");
WorkerCancel = false;
break;
}
}
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("Worker released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("Worker failed to acquire lock");
}
});
}
public void Interrupt() {
Log("UI thread - Setting interrupt flag");
WorkerCancel = true;
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj, 5000)) {
try {
Log("UI thread - successfully acquired lock from worker");
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("UI thread - Released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("UI thread - failed to acquire the lock from the worker");
}
}
private void Log(string Data) {
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - {1}", DateTime.Now.ToString("mm:ss:ffff"), Data));
}
}
}
Here is nearly identical code that fails for WP7, just make a page with two buttons and hook them
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
using System.Windows;
using Microsoft.Phone.Controls;
namespace WorkerThreadDemo {
public partial class MainPage : PhoneApplicationPage {
public MainPage() {
InitializeComponent();
}
private Object lockObj = new Object();
private volatile bool WorkerCancel = false;
private void buttonStartWorker_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) {
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((obj) => {
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj)) {
try {
Log("Worker acquired the lock");
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++) {
Thread.Sleep(1200);
Log("Worker: tick" + x.ToString());
if (WorkerCancel) {
Log("Worker received exit signal, exiting");
WorkerCancel = false;
break;
}
}
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("Worker released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("Worker failed to acquire lock");
}
});
}
private void Log(string Data) {
Debug.WriteLine(string.Format("{0} - {1}", DateTime.Now.ToString("mm:ss:ffff"), Data));
}
private void buttonInterrupt_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) {
Log("UI thread - Setting interrupt flag");
WorkerCancel = true;
//Thread.Sleep(3000); UNCOMMENT ME AND THIS WILL START TO WORK!
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObj, 5000)) {
try {
Log("UI thread - successfully acquired lock from worker");
} finally {
Monitor.Exit(lockObj);
Log("UI thread - Released the lock");
}
} else {
Log("UI thread - failed to acquire the lock from the worker");
}
}
}
}
Your approach should work when you operate from the Application_Deactivated or Application_Closing event. MSDN says:
There is a time limit for the Deactivated event to complete. The
device may terminate the application if it takes longer than 10
seconds to save the transient state.
So if you say it just takes just a few seconds this should be fine. Unless the docs don't tell the whole story. Or your worker thread takes longer to exit than you think.
As Heinrich Ulbricht already said you have <=10 sec to finish your stuff, but you should block MainThread to get them.
It means that even if you have BG thread with much work to do, but your UI thread just does nothing in OnClosingEvent/OnDeactivatingEvent - you will not get your 10 seconds.
Our application actually does eternal wait on UI thread in closing event to allow BG thread send some data thru sockets.
I'm calling a powershell script from C#. The script is pretty small and is "gps;$host.SetShouldExit(9)", which list process, and then send back an exit code to be captured by the PSHost object.
The problem I have is when the pipeline has been stopped and disposed, the output reader PSHost collection still seems to be written to, and is filling up. So when I try and copy it to my own output object, it craps out with a OutOfMemoryException when I try to iterate over it. Sometimes it will except with a Collection was modified message. Here is the code.
private void ProcessAndExecuteBlock(ScriptBlock Block)
{
Collection<PSObject> PSCollection = new Collection<PSObject>();
Collection<Object> PSErrorCollection = new Collection<Object>();
Boolean Error = false;
int ExitCode=0;
//Send for exection.
ExecuteScript(Block.Script);
// Process the waithandles.
while (PExecutor.PLine.PipelineStateInfo.State == PipelineState.Running)
{
// Wait for either error or data waithandle.
switch (WaitHandle.WaitAny(PExecutor.Hand))
{
// Data
case 0:
Collection<PSObject> data = PExecutor.PLine.Output.NonBlockingRead();
if (data.Count > 0)
{
for (int cnt = 0; cnt <= (data.Count-1); cnt++)
{
PSCollection.Add(data[cnt]);
}
}
// Check to see if the pipeline has been closed.
if (PExecutor.PLine.Output.EndOfPipeline)
{
// Bring back the exit code.
ExitCode = RHost.ExitCode;
}
break;
case 1:
Collection<object> Errordata = PExecutor.PLine.Error.NonBlockingRead();
if (Errordata.Count > 0)
{
Error = true;
for (int count = 0; count <= (Errordata.Count - 1); count++)
{
PSErrorCollection.Add(Errordata[count]);
}
}
break;
}
}
PExecutor.Stop();
// Create the Execution Return block
ExecutionResults ER = new ExecutionResults(Block.RuleGuid,Block.SubRuleGuid, Block.MessageIdentfier);
ER.ExitCode = ExitCode;
// Add in the data results.
lock (ReadSync)
{
if (PSCollection.Count > 0)
{
ER.DataAdd(PSCollection);
}
}
// Add in the error data if any.
if (Error)
{
if (PSErrorCollection.Count > 0)
{
ER.ErrorAdd(PSErrorCollection);
}
else
{
ER.InError = true;
}
}
// We have finished, so enque the block back.
EnQueueOutput(ER);
}
and this is the PipelineExecutor class which setups the pipeline for execution.
public class PipelineExecutor
{
private Pipeline pipeline;
private WaitHandle[] Handles;
public Pipeline PLine
{
get { return pipeline; }
}
public WaitHandle[] Hand
{
get { return Handles; }
}
public PipelineExecutor(Runspace runSpace, string command)
{
pipeline = runSpace.CreatePipeline(command);
Handles = new WaitHandle[2];
Handles[0] = pipeline.Output.WaitHandle;
Handles[1] = pipeline.Error.WaitHandle;
}
public void Start()
{
if (pipeline.PipelineStateInfo.State == PipelineState.NotStarted)
{
pipeline.Input.Close();
pipeline.InvokeAsync();
}
}
public void Stop()
{
pipeline.StopAsync();
}
}
An this is the DataAdd method, where the exception arises.
public void DataAdd(Collection<PSObject> Data)
{
foreach (PSObject Ps in Data)
{
Data.Add(Ps);
}
}
I put a for loop around the Data.Add, and the Collection filled up with 600k+ so feels like the gps command is still running, but why. Any ideas.
Thanks in advance.
Found the problem. Named the resultant collection and the iterator the same, so as it was iterating, it was adding to the collection, and back into the iterator, and so forth. Doh!.