Exception thrown by deferred.await() within a runBlocking treated as unhandled even after caught

Question

This code:

fun main() {
    runBlocking {
        try {
            val deferred = async { throw Exception() }
            deferred.await()
        } catch (e: E         


        

Answer 1

This can be resolved by slightly altering the code to make the deferred value be executed explicitly using the same CoroutineContext as the runBlocking scope, e.g.

runBlocking {
    try {
        val deferred = withContext(this.coroutineContext) {
            async {
                throw Exception()
            }
        }
        deferred.await()
    } catch (e: Exception) {
        println("Caught $e")
    }
}
println("Completed")

UPDATE AFTER ORIGINAL QUESTION UPDATED

Does this provide what you want:

runBlocking {
    supervisorScope {
        try {
            val a = async {
                delay(1000)
                println("Done after delay")
            }
            val b = async { throw Exception() }
            awaitAll(a, b)
        } catch (e: Exception) {
            println("Caught $e")
            // Optional next line, depending on whether you want the async with the delay in it to be cancelled.
            coroutineContext.cancelChildren()
        }
    }
}

This is taken from this comment which discusses parallel decomposition.

Answer 2

A normal CoroutineScope (which is created by runBlocking) immediately cancels all child coroutines when one of them throws an exception. This behaviour is documented here: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/coroutines/exception-handling.html#cancellation-and-exceptions

You can use a supervisorScope to get the behaviour you want. If a child coroutine fails inside a supervisor scope, it will not immediately cancel the other children. The children will only be cancelled if the exception is unhandled.

For more info, see here: https://kotlin.github.io/kotlinx.coroutines/kotlinx-coroutines-core/kotlinx.coroutines/supervisor-scope.html

fun main() {
    runBlocking {
        supervisorScope {
            try {
                val deferred = async { throw Exception() }
                deferred.await()
            } catch (e: Exception) {
                println("Caught $e")
            }
        }
    }
    println("Completed")
}

Answer 3

After studying the reasons why Kotlin introduced this behavior I found that, if the exceptions weren't propagated this way, it would be complicated to write well-behaved code that gets cancelled in a timely fashion. For example:

runBlocking {
    val deferredA = async {
        Thread.sleep(10_000)
        println("Done after delay")
        1
    }
    val deferredB = async<Int> { throw Exception() }
    println(deferredA.await() + deferredB.await())
}

Because a is the first result we happen to wait for, this code would keep running for 10 seconds and then result in an error and no useful work achieved. In most cases we'd like to cancel everything as soon as one component fails. We could do it like this:

val (a, b) = awaitAll(deferredA, deferredB)
println(a + b)

This code is less elegant: we're forced to await on all results at the same place and we lose type safety because awaitAll returns a list of the common supertype of all arguments. If we have some

suspend fun suspendFun(): Int {
    delay(10_000)
    return 2
}

and we want to write

val c = suspendFun()
val (a, b) = awaitAll(deferredA, deferredB)
println(a + b + c)

We're deprived of the opportunity to bail out before suspendFun completes. We might work around like this:

val deferredC = async { suspendFun() }
val (a, b, c) = awaitAll(deferredA, deferredB, deferredC)
println(a + b + c)

but this is brittle because you must watch out to make sure you do this for each and every suspendable call. It is also against the Kotlin doctrine of "sequential by default"

In conclusion: the current design, while counterintuitive at first, does make sense as a practical solution. It additionally strengthens the rule not to use async-await unless you're doing parallel decomposition of a task.

Answer 4

Though all the answers are right at there place but let me throw some more light in it that might help other users. It is documented here (Official doc) that:-

If a coroutine encounters exception other than CancellationException, it cancels its parent with that exception. This behaviour cannot be overridden and is used to provide stable coroutines hierarchies for structured concurrency which do not depend on CoroutineExceptionHandler implementation. The original exception is handled by the parent (In GlobalScope) when all its children terminate.

It does not make sense to install an exception handler to a coroutine that is launched in the scope of the main runBlocking, since the main coroutine is going to be always cancelled when its child completes with exception despite the installed handler.

Hope this will help.