I'm trying to open "mspaint" and find handle of it right after it has been initialized. But FindWindow returns NULL if I call WaitForInputIdle. If I try to use the function Sleep(1000) it works. But I don't think it's a right way to wait for the program to be ready. Is there a solution for this code?
CString strWindowDirectory;
GetSystemDirectory(strWindowDirectory.GetBuffer(MAX_PATH), MAX_PATH);
SHELLEXECUTEINFO sei = { 0 };
sei.cbSize = sizeof(SHELLEXECUTEINFO);
sei.fMask = SEE_MASK_NOCLOSEPROCESS;
sei.lpVerb = L"open";
sei.lpFile = L"mspaint";
sei.lpDirectory = strWindowDirectory;
sei.nShow = SW_SHOWNORMAL;
HWND hPaint = NULL;
if(ShellExecuteEx(&sei))
{
int r = ::WaitForInputIdle(sei.hProcess, INFINITE);
ATLTRACE(L"WaitForInputIdle %d\n", r);
if (sei.hProcess == NULL) return;
hPaint = ::FindWindow(L"MSPaintApp", NULL);
ATLTRACE(L"Handle %d\n", hPaint);
if (!hPaint) return;
}
else
{
MessageBox(L"Couldn't find mspaint program");
return;
}
WaitForInputIdle works, but not the way you assume it does. This is largely, because the documentation is misleading (or at least not as explicit as it should be):
Waits until the specified process has finished processing its initial input and is waiting for user input with no input pending, or until the time-out interval has elapsed.
This is almost criminally inaccurate. While the Remarks section notes, that WaitForInputIdle waits at most once per process, it never mentions significant details. Specifically:
WaitForInputIdle returns, as soon as the initial startup has come to a point, where any thread in the process is ready to process messages. Those messages need not be user input.
WaitForInputIdle was invented to allow a process to communicate with a child process using a message-based protocol. The specific scenario addressed was DDE, which no one1) uses anymore.
WaitForInputIdle cannot be used as a reliable solution to your problem: Waiting for a child process' UI to show up. You really need to wait for the UI show up.
The system offers two solutions you can use:
A global CBT hook, and wait for the HCBT_CREATEWND callback. You can inspect the CREATESTRUCT's lpszClass and/or lpszName members to filter out the window you are interested in.
Use WinEvents and respond to the EVENT_OBJECT_CREATE event.
The global CBT hook is called, whenever a window is about to be created. The kernel structures that the HWND references have been fully populated, but the client calling CreateWindow[Ex] may still terminate window creation. In contrast, the WinEvent is issued, after the window has been fully constructed, and is ready for interaction.
In general, a solution based on a CBT hook is used, when an application needs to update certain aspects of a window before the caller of CreateWindowEx gets to see the HWND for the first time. WinEvents, instead, are usually the tool of choice when implementing accessibility or UI automation solutions.
Additional resources:
WaitForInputIdle should really be called WaitForProcessStartupComplete
WaitForInputIdle waits for any thread, which might not be the thread you care about
1) Yes, I know, some applications might still use DDE. But if Raymond Chen suggested in 2007, that we should feel free to stop using DDE, I'll just pass that on as authoritative guidance.
Related
I originally had an ActiveX control that registered a Windows timer (with SetTimer()) that fires every few seconds. That worked fine so far. Now in order to implement a full screen mode, I added a child window to my control that is supposed to show the content while the control itself manages all the ActiveX stuff.
The problem that I have with this approach is that my WM_TIMER suddenly stops firing at some time. I have traced it back to UIDeactivate() being called on my control but I don't know why this method is called (I believe it has something to do with losing focus) when it wasn't called before.
I would also like to know why my WM_TIMER events suddenly stop while everything else still seems to work fine. And what could it have to do with showing the content in a child window instead of on the ActiveX control itself?
Timers stops for a reason. Which might be:
You do stop timer by KillTimer call
Your window is re-created and timer is not re-enabled
Your control is windowless and you actually don't have a HWND handle
There is a collision in timer identifiers, there is something else (e.g. internal subclassed window) out there to use the same identifier, it sets, kill the timer and you no longer see WM_TIMER messages you enabled earlier
The window thread is busy (frozen) with some activity which does not include message dispatching, so timer itself exists, is healthy and alive, just no messages sent
The things to do - without yet additional information on the issue on hands:
Check threads of your window, and your Set/KillTimer calls to make sure they all make sense together
Use Spy++ tool to check messages posted for your window and/or in the thread of the interest, to find out if you really have WM_TIMERs missing, or they just don't reach your code; also you might see other interesting messages around
Here's an excerpt from ATL implementation of CComControlBase (I would guess that your control inherits from that). Check the part marked with <<<<<<<<<<<:
inline HRESULT CComControlBase::IOleInPlaceObject_InPlaceDeactivate(void)
{
if (!m_bInPlaceActive)
return S_OK;
if(m_bUIActive) {
CComPtr<IOleInPlaceObject> pIPO;
ControlQueryInterface(__uuidof(IOleInPlaceObject), (void**)&pIPO);
ATLENSURE(pIPO != NULL);
pIPO->UIDeactivate();
}
m_bInPlaceActive = FALSE;
// if we have a window, tell it to go away.
//
if (m_hWndCD)
{
ATLTRACE(atlTraceControls,2,_T("Destroying Window\n"));
if (::IsWindow(m_hWndCD))
DestroyWindow(m_hWndCD); <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
m_hWndCD = NULL;
}
if (m_spInPlaceSite)
m_spInPlaceSite->OnInPlaceDeactivate();
return S_OK;
}
On deactivation, the control window gets destroyed. Therefore it can't process WM_TIMER anymore.
I am using ATL in VisualC++10 to host browser control.
My code is similar to this example: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9d0714y1(v=vs.80).aspx
Difference is I have main window and then child window hosts the browser control.
After 2 minutes i have to close the browser completely kill the browser activeX but this child window should be alive and do something else. But somehow this browser control still stays there, i can either see scrollbars or something..
I have also tried by creating child window to an existing child window, and at the time of closing browser I then destroy this child of a child - but still it does not work!
This is how I am closing:
CLOSE()
{
m_spIWebBrowser2->Navigate(bstrURL, &vEmpty, &vEmpty, &vEmpty, &vEmpty);
m_spIWebBrowser2->Stop();
m_spIWebBrowser2->put_Visible(VARIANT_FALSE);
m_spIWebBrowser2->Quit();
DestroyWindow(m_wndChild.m_hWnd);
}
Thanks!
I had many problems with "access violation" when closing webbrowser control, these are the steps that worked for me:
Unadvise any previously advised events (DWebBrowserEvents2 in my case).
If you've attached click events unattach them like this: _variant_t v; v.vt = VT_DISPATCH; v.pdispVal = 0; IHTMLDocument2->put_onclick(v);
IWebBrowser2->Stop()
IWebBrowser2->ExecWB(OLECMDID_CLOSE, OLECMDEXECOPT_DONTPROMPTUSER, 0, 0) - when closing browser window through window.external.CloseWindow() I had unhandled exceptions and OLECMDID_CLOSE fixed it.
IWebBrowser2->put_Visible(VARIANT_FALSE)
IWebBrowser2->Release()
IOleInPlaceObject->InPlaceDeactivate()
IOleInPlaceObject->Release()
IOleObject->DoVerb(OLEIVERB_HIDE, NULL, IOleClientSite, 0, windowHandle_, NULL)
IOleObject->Close(OLECLOSE_NOSAVE)
OleSetContainedObject(IOleObject, FALSE)
IOleObject->SetClientSite(NULL)
CoDisconnectObject(IOleObject, 0)
IOleObject->Release()
IWebBrowser2->Quit() should not be called for WebBrowser control (CLSID_WebBrowser), it is intended only for Internet Explorer object (CLSID_InternetExplorer).
Why must it be so hard?
My experience is that some calls might need message processing to function properly. Try to pump some messages between your calls to Navigate, Stop etc. When working with the web browser interfaces I PostMessage myself often to trigger the next step to make sure the previous step had time to complete.
The problem might be related to your child thread. You cannot access web browser interfaces between threads without some additional work. COM needs to be initialized as single-threaded apartment (STA). And you need to follow the rules of STAs:
Every object should live on only one thread (within a single-threaded apartment).
Initialize the COM library for each thread.
Marshal all pointers to objects when passing them between apartments.
Each single-threaded apartment must have a message loop to handle calls from other processes and apartments within the same process. Single-threaded apartments without objects (client only) also need a message loop to dispatch the broadcast messages that some applications use.
...
If I use DialogBox and drop a IEControl on it as a resource and DialogBox is derived from CAxDialogImpl<> - then while I call DestroyWindow() of dialogBox then it is automatically doing the cleanup() - which is what I required.
But originally I wanted to get rid of DialogBox itself and use IEControl directly on my Window, it seems not..
I'd like to use SetWindowHookEx to catch WM_CREATE (or HCBT_CREATEWND) messages in a process before a creation of a window.
Using the hMod and dwThreadId it is possible to define whether the hook will be system-wide (by setting hMod to be the gInstance of the DLL and dwThreadId to 0), it is also possible to use it to monitor a SINGLE thread in a process (hMod = 0, and dwThreadId = ThreadToMonitorId).
However, I'd like to monitor multiple threads. Is it possible? I guess I can simply call SetWindowHookEx for multiple threads but I'd rather not as it would make things more complex. Are there other alternatives?
Thanks!
You could hook all processes and only process WM_CREATE for the current process. As the hook is called in the context of the process itself, you can simply compare GetProcessId() to the desired process id.
It is very unusual for a process to create more than one thread that owns a UI window. Sometimes it is a interop window which is intentionally hidden, unlikely that you'd want to know about it. Verify your assumptions with Spy++, the owner thread ID is shown in the window properties, Process tab.
If it does have more than one thread creating windows that you want to know about then you'll want to set separate hooks.
If my application crashes, I use an ExceptionFilter to catch the crash, perform some final actions, then show a message box to the user that the application has crashed.
Because the application already crashed, there's not much I can (or I dare) to do, because if I do too much, the executed code might access corrupted memory and crash again.
Some of the things I currently can't do (or I don't dare to do) is to close network connections, Oracle database sessions, ...
Problem is that if an application crashes, and the user is out to lunch while the MessageBox is open, other users might be blocked, because of the open database session. Therefore I want:
Either a MessageBox with a time-out. Problem is that you can't do this with the standard MessageBox Win32 API function, and I don't want to make a specific dialog for it (because I want to minimize the executed logic after the crash)
Or the possibility to close the MessageBox from another thread (the other thread can provide the time-out logic).
Did I overlook something in the Win32 API and is there a possibility to have a MessageBox with a time-out?
Or what is the correct way to close an open MessageBox from another thread (how to get the MessageBox handle, how to close it, ...)?
While I agree that spawning a new process to display a fire-and-forget dialog is probably best, FWIW there is actually a timeoutable messagebox function exported from user32 on XP & above; MessageBoxTimeout (as used by things like WShell.Popup())
Quick copy/paste solution:
int DU_MessageBoxTimeout(HWND hWnd, const WCHAR* sText, const WCHAR* sCaption, UINT uType, DWORD dwMilliseconds)
{
// Displays a message box, and dismisses it after the specified timeout.
typedef int(__stdcall *MSGBOXWAPI)(IN HWND hWnd, IN LPCWSTR lpText, IN LPCWSTR lpCaption, IN UINT uType, IN WORD wLanguageId, IN DWORD dwMilliseconds);
int iResult;
HMODULE hUser32 = LoadLibraryA("user32.dll");
if (hUser32)
{
auto MessageBoxTimeoutW = (MSGBOXWAPI)GetProcAddress(hUser32, "MessageBoxTimeoutW");
iResult = MessageBoxTimeoutW(hWnd, sText, sCaption, uType, 0, dwMilliseconds);
FreeLibrary(hUser32);
}
else
iResult = MessageBox(hWnd, sText, sCaption, uType); // oups, fallback to the standard function!
return iResult;
}
You should ask yourself, why you want a messagebox in the first place. When it is OK that the message box is not seen when noone is sitting in front of the computer, why isn't it OK that the user doesn't see a message when his program disappears?
If you really want it, I think the simplest solution is to spawn a new process displaying the message. It can run as long as it wants and does not interfer with your crashing program.
I noticed that if the main thread simply exits the application while the other thread still has the ::MessageBox open, that the MessageBox is being adopted by a process called CSRSS. This solves my problem, since this only requires a time-out on the Event in the main thread (WaitForSingleObject with timeout).
However, this raised another question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3091915/explanation-why-messagebox-of-exited-application-is-adopted-by-winsrv.
This does not justify a thread.
The best solution would be to use a modal dialog box that registers a timer for auto-close.
What about just logging the event to a local file (and record memory dumps or whatever information you might need for later debugging)?
You could close your application, close network connections and do your housekeeping stuff.
As soon as the application is started again, you can inform your user (based on local file information) that the application has crashed during last execution.
A Win32 MessageBox really is a dialog, with a dialog message pump. You can therefore rely on standard Win32 timer messages (WM_TIMER). Send one to your own window, and when you do get it, dismiss the MessageBox by sending a WM_COMMAND/BN_CLICKED message to the ID_OK button.
The messagebox, since it's a dialog, will be class "#32770". Since it's the only dialog box you will have open, it's easy to find amongst your child windows.
I would run your original code from inside a wrapper application that does a CreateProcess and then a MsgWaitForMultipleObjects on the process handle (most process launching code samples use WaitForSingleObject, but you need to guard against messaging deadlock scenarios). Your watching process can then detect the failure of the spawned process, pop up its own timed-out dialog, and exit on user response or timeout.
I think that's the cleanest solution which prevents your unstable program having to execute any code.
I occasionally need to process a large amount of data from one package off the network, which takes sufficiently long that when the user tries to interact with the application windows adds the "(Not Responding)" string to the window title. I am aware this is because the processing is being done within a call to handle a message (some way up the stack) and therefore is blocking the message pump. I'm also aware the ideal way to deal with this is to process the data asynchronously in a separate thread so the pump can continue running, however this is a LARGE desktop application which is single threaded from top to toe and safely spinning this processing off is not feasible in our time frame.
So with that in mind, is there by any chance a way I can at least avoid the "not responding" moniker (which to most users reads as "has crashed") by telling windows my application is about to be busy before I begin the work? I believe there is something along these lines when responding to a request to close, one can keep asking windows for more time to avoid it proclaiming that your not "closing in a timely fashion"
I should add this is a C++ MFC application.
I don't think the Windows API can help you here.
Alternatively, how about showing a dialog box with a progress bar and make it run in a separate thread?
A text like "This operation may take half an hour" on the dialog box may be appropriate too.
Ok, firstly I upvoted Frederick's post because like it or not, the second thread is probably the best way to go.
However, if you really don't want to go down this road, you could manually pump the message queue within your apps inner loop. Something like this;
int Refresh()
{
MSG msg;
if (PeekMessage (&msg, NULL, 0, 0,PM_NOREMOVE))
if ((msg.message == WM_QUIT)
||(msg.message == WM_CLOSE)
||(msg.message == WM_DESTROY)
||(msg.message == WM_NCDESTROY)
||(msg.message == WM_HSCROLL)
||(msg.message == WM_VSCROLL)
)
return(1);
if (PeekMessage (&msg, NULL, 0, 0,PM_REMOVE))
{
TranslateMessage (&msg);
DispatchMessage (&msg);
}
return(0);
}
This is actually a piece of code I used prior to rewriting something similar as a seperate thread. Basically I have a look at the queue, filter out unwanted messages, and post on the rest. It works to an extent, but caused some occasional nasty side effects, hence the rewrite.
You don't have to actually do anything with the messages from PeekMessage. Just call PeekMessage, you don't even have to remove anything from the queue or process it. As long as it is called every 5 seconds or so, it will cause windows to think the process is still responsive.
An alternative idea is to have a separate process/thread that will appear in the notification tray and inform the user that the process is busy waiting for an internal operation to complete. You'll see these in the later versions of Visual Studio, SQL Server Management Studio, etc.
Win32 has a method for this in user32.dll.
DisableProcessWindowsGhosting()
Disables the window ghosting feature for the calling GUI process. Window ghosting is a Windows Manager feature that lets the user minimize, move, or close the main window of an application that is not responding.
In addition to the above documented behavior, I also verified here (in a C# application) that this Win32 call also prevents the Not Responding label from appearing on the window as desired.
I found this via the C# answer to similar question here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/15380821/29152.
If you fork off a thread you're most likely worried about some other user action happening which may depend on the result of the long running operation (yeah, concurrency). So expanding on what Fredrick said, if you do spin off a new thread and put up a progress bar, you could lock the focus onto the progress bar to stop a user from interacting with the rest of the application. That should be enough to implement a really simple second thread without really having to worry about concurrency because you're essentially locking out the rest of the app by disabling user interation.
You'll need to interleave the processing with message handling somehow. If threads are out of the question, you might want to look at splitting the processing into multiple phases. One way to do this is to do some processing when you first receive the packet, then post a message to the application saying "continue processing here". When the application receives the "continue processing here" message, it will do some more processing, and either send another "continue processing here" message or finish up.
There are a couple of considerations though:
You need to make sure that the state of the application is consistent every time you post a message to yourself and defer to the message loop, as other message handling might happen in the mean-time. This can be done e.g. by only changing the state in the final processing phase.
Another packet might arrive while you are still processing the first packet. If changing the order of processing would be bad for the application, you could handle this by e.g. posting a "remind me to process this packet later" message when this happens.
I don't know whether this would be feasible within the design of your application, but it would be one way to solve the problem.
If you are unwilling to spawn a worker thread, but you can break the long-running task down into smaller parts, you can do the processing in MFC's CWinApp::OnIdle. This function gets called from within the message pump loop whenever there are no Windows messages waiting. As long as the work you do in each OnIdle call is sufficiently short, you keep your app responsive.
Assuming that it is the processing of the data that is taking up all the time and not the receiving (and you're serious about avoiding a thread - which is fine IMOHO) of the data you could:
In the function that you are currently handling the message, create a modal dialog that shows a "please wait" message (or make it hidden, small, whatever...). Copy (or send a pointer, etc...) the data you're processing to a member variable of that dialog.
In the modal dialog post a user-defined message to yourself to process the data.
In the dialog's message handler, handle one "unit" of work. Keep track what the next "unit" of work is. Post the same message again.
Repeat this post-message "loop" until done. Close your dialog.
The nature of the modal dialog will keep you're application "responsive", with minimal interruption or change to how the application worked previously. Reentrancy can be a problem with modal loops, especially if any of this is involved with a WM_PAINT message. (anyone ever assert inside painting code? good times, good times...)
The dialog could even have a cancel button if you'd like.
I encountered the exact same problem.
Since I dont consider the other answers appealing/straightforward I decided to post this.
Short description and some context:
I am saving data from a grid into a database, and this process can take a while. So I changed the saving method to an asynchronous method and had the same problem.
Then I came up with a simple solution:
//__ENABLE OR DISABLE MAIN DIALOG
void CMFCApplication1Dlg::enableMainDlg(bool enable)
{
this->EnableWindow(enable);
}
When starting the asynchronous method, I disable the main dialog.
This prevents the user from interacting with the main dialog (like starting another saving process which could result in thousands of SQL error messages if I wouldn't check if the saving process is already running...)
When the saving process is finished, I re-enable the main dialog.
Works like a charm, I hope this helps
One way to overcome your application from becoming unresponsive you need to tell the application to process messages from windows. When you are in your loop you can call
Application->ProcessMessages();
I had a similar issue with a win32 app that was waiting on a response from webservice using cpprest (Casablanca) api. My solution was to create a event and thread that does nothing but wait for the cpprest api and then release the thread once it recieves the signal:
DWORD WINAPI WaitForCasablanca(LPVOID n)
{
// Get the handler to the event for which we need to wait in
// this thread.
HANDLE hEvent = OpenEvent(EVENT_ALL_ACCESS, false, "MyEvent");
if (!hEvent) { return -1; }
// Loop through and wait for an event to occur
// Wait for the Event
WaitForSingleObject(hEvent, INFINITE);
// No need to Reset the event as its become non signaled as soon as
// some thread catches the event.
CloseHandle(hEvent);
return 0;}
BOOL WINAPI DlgProc(HWND hDlg, UINT message, WPARAM,wParam, LPARAM lParam) ...
HANDLE hEvent = CreateEvent(NULL, false, false, "MyEvent");//create an event that will wait for casablanca ro authenticate
if (!hEvent) return -1;
// Create a Thread Which will wait for the events to occur
DWORD Id;
HANDLE hThrd = CreateThread(NULL, 0, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)WaitForCasablanca, 0, 0, &Id);
if (!hThrd) { CloseHandle(hEvent); return -1; }
makeCasablancaRequest(...);
SetEvent(hEvent); //casablanca has finished signal the event to terminate
WaitForSingleObject(hThrd, INFINITE); //wait for thread to die
CloseHandle(hThrd);
CloseHandle(hEvent);
...}
That got rid of the "program not responding" message for me. I believe the problem is the code that is getting the data is running in a thread too- only the main program doesn't know this- so as far as the system is concerned the main program is idling. You need an event and a thread that waits for the event to tell the system the program is waiting on data. I got the code from this tutorial: How to use WIN32 Event Kernel Object