synchronous looping idiom required and/or upsert needed

[raytrask]

I have an app that requires me to iterate a list of results queried from a PC database to feed parse. The results often have to be overridden with new results.

In a legacy java sdk, we simply did:

For each result:

• do synchronous find
  • if not found
  • create a new object
  • else
  • Update the existing object
  • Save synchronously

and had no problems.

BTW - our server needs to feed Parse in seconds, not microseconds, though speed would not hurt!

I am new to c# and still trying to grok the async idioms.

I need to synchronize (block) in some way or my processing loop adds in duplicate parse objects for the same results read from database.

Everywhere I look says, "DO NOT BLOCK or you will get deadlocks". And says go async/await all the way, yet when I do that I get duplicates. So I added locks and blocks and I get deadlocks after hours of processing commands just fine.

An upsert may help the find then add or update problem, but it does not solve the duplicate problem when looping.

( I'm considering going with upsert cloud code gist )

Questions: 1) Is there a reason the SDK doesn't support sync and/or upsert out of the box? 2) Is there an idiom I am missing here that loops through a result list without sending duplicates?

This seems like a pretty common use case.

Thanks in advance.

[TheFanatr]

If this is still an issue, could you please provide a code sample? I'm not aware of any issue that would cause object duplication. I think the issue is with your logic here, but I may be misunderstanding your intentions; when you say "for each result", do you mean for each result received from a query operation? Because if so, any query result already "exists" so I don't really understand what you would be finding in your if statement. I can give you some code to tweak that does what you want it to, but I'm having trouble figuring out what your pseudocode means; if you want to give me a more specific example, I can try to help.

[TobiasPott]

@raytrask If this is still an issue to you, would it be possible to get additional information like @TheFanatr requested? We will pick it up as an an internal note on the project board, but we will rely on additional info to reproduce and cope with the problem.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.