Missing `System.Net.Sockets.TcpClient.Connect(IPEndPoint remoteEP)` overload.

[MartyIX]

Background and Motivation

This issue proposes to add System.Net.Sockets.TcpClient.ConnectAsync(IPEndPoint remoteEP) method.

This issue was filed based on #40750 and comment #40750 (comment) by @geoffkizer.

Proposed API

namespace System.Net.Sockets
public class TcpClient : IDisposable
{

    public void Connect(IPAddress address, int port);
    public void Connect(IPAddress[] ipAddresses, int port);
    public void Connect(IPEndPoint remoteEP);
    public void Connect(string hostname, int port);

    public Task ConnectAsync(IPAddress address, int port);
    public Task ConnectAsync(IPAddress[] addresses, int port);
+    public Task ConnectAsync(IPEndPoint remoteEP);
    public Task ConnectAsync(string host, int port);

    public ValueTask ConnectAsync (IPAddress address, int port, CancellationToken cancellationToken);
    public ValueTask ConnectAsync (IPAddress[] addresses, int port, CancellationToken cancellationToken);
+    public ValueTask ConnectAsync(IPEndPoint remoteEP,  CancellationToken cancellationToken);
    public ValueTask ConnectAsync (string host, int port, CancellationToken cancellationToken);
}

Usage Examples

Usage example is the same as for System.Net.Sockets.TcpClient.Connect(IPEndPoint remoteEP).

Alternative Designs

N/A.

Risks

N/A

[Dotnet-GitSync-Bot]

I couldn't figure out the best area label to add to this issue. If you have write-permissions please help me learn by adding exactly one area label.

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/ncl
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

[MihaZupan]

We would certainly also want the newer ValueTask-CancellationToken overload.

I assume the reason that overload was missed is because the non-cancellable overload was missing.

public ValueTask ConnectAsync(IPEndPoint remoteEP,  CancellationToken cancellationToken);

[karelz]

Proposal updated in top post and marked as ready for review -- cc @scalablecory

[scalablecory]

I vaguely recall that we decided to leave this one off intentionally, but I could be misremembering.

[geoffkizer]

This just seems like an oversight. We have a sync overload for this, but not async.