确实很难!在我的(c++)单元测试中，我按照使用的并发模式将其分解为几个类别:

Unit tests for classes that operate in a single thread and aren't thread aware -- easy, test as usual. Unit tests for Monitor objects (those that execute synchronized methods in the callers' thread of control) that expose a synchronized public API -- instantiate multiple mock threads that exercise the API. Construct scenarios that exercise internal conditions of the passive object. Include one longer running test that basically beats the heck out of it from multiple threads for a long period of time. This is unscientific I know but it does build confidence. Unit tests for Active objects (those that encapsulate their own thread or threads of control) -- similar to #2 above with variations depending on the class design. Public API may be blocking or non-blocking, callers may obtain futures, data may arrive at queues or need to be dequeued. There are many combinations possible here; white box away. Still requires multiple mock threads to make calls to the object under test.

题外话:

在我所做的内部开发人员培训中，我教授了并发的支柱和这两种模式，作为思考和分解并发问题的主要框架。显然还有更先进的概念，但我发现这组基础知识可以帮助工程师摆脱困境。正如上面所描述的，它还会导致代码更具单元可测试性。

有一篇关于这个主题的文章，在示例代码中使用Rust作为语言:

https://medium.com/@polyglot_factotum/rust-concurrency-five-easy-pieces-871f1c62906a

总而言之，诀窍在于编写并发逻辑，使其对涉及多个执行线程的非确定性具有健壮性，使用通道和condvars等工具。

然后，如果这就是您构建“组件”的方式，那么测试它们的最简单方法是使用通道向它们发送消息，然后阻塞其他通道以断言组件发送某些预期的消息。

链接到的文章完全使用单元测试编写。

Testing MT code for correctness is, as already stated, quite a hard problem. In the end it boils down to ensuring that there are no incorrectly synchronised data races in your code. The problem with this is that there are infinitely many possibilities of thread execution (interleavings) over which you do not have much control (be sure to read this article, though). In simple scenarios it might be possible to actually prove correctness by reasoning but this is usually not the case. Especially if you want to avoid/minimize synchronization and not go for the most obvious/easiest synchronization option.

我遵循的一种方法是编写高度并发的测试代码，以使潜在的未检测到的数据竞争有可能发生。然后我运行这些测试一段时间:)我曾经无意中看到一个演讲，一些计算机科学家展示了一个这样做的工具(根据规格随机设计测试，然后疯狂地运行它们，同时检查定义的不变量是否被破坏)。

顺便说一下，我认为测试MT代码的这一方面在这里还没有提到:确定可以随机检查的代码不变量。不幸的是，找到这些不变量也是一个相当困难的问题。此外，它们在执行期间可能不会一直保持，因此您必须找到/强制执行可以期望它们为真的执行点。将代码执行到这样的状态也是一个难题(并且本身可能会引起并发性问题)。呼，这太难了!

一些有趣的链接可供阅读:

确定性交错:允许强制执行某些线程交错，然后检查不变量的框架 jMock Blitzer:压力测试同步 assertConcurrent:压力测试同步的JUnit版本 测试并发代码:简要介绍两种主要方法:蛮力(压力测试)或确定性(使用不变量)

(如果可能的话)不要使用线程，使用actor /活动对象。易于测试。

我做过很多这样的事，的确很糟糕。

一些建议:

GroboUtils for running multiple test threads alphaWorks ConTest to instrument classes to cause interleavings to vary between iterations Create a throwable field and check it in tearDown (see Listing 1). If you catch a bad exception in another thread, just assign it to throwable. I created the utils class in Listing 2 and have found it invaluable, especially waitForVerify and waitForCondition, which will greatly increase the performance of your tests. Make good use of AtomicBoolean in your tests. It is thread safe, and you'll often need a final reference type to store values from callback classes and suchlike. See example in Listing 3. Make sure to always give your test a timeout (e.g., @Test(timeout=60*1000)), as concurrency tests can sometimes hang forever when they're broken.

清单1:

@After
public void tearDown() {
    if ( throwable != null )
        throw throwable;
}

清单2:

import static org.junit.Assert.fail;
import java.io.File;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
import java.util.Random;
import org.apache.commons.collections.Closure;
import org.apache.commons.collections.Predicate;
import org.apache.commons.lang.time.StopWatch;
import org.easymock.EasyMock;
import org.easymock.classextension.internal.ClassExtensionHelper;
import static org.easymock.classextension.EasyMock.*;

import ca.digitalrapids.io.DRFileUtils;

/**
 * Various utilities for testing
 */
public abstract class DRTestUtils
{
    static private Random random = new Random();

/** Calls {@link #waitForCondition(Integer, Integer, Predicate, String)} with
 * default max wait and check period values.
 */
static public void waitForCondition(Predicate predicate, String errorMessage) 
    throws Throwable
{
    waitForCondition(null, null, predicate, errorMessage);
}

/** Blocks until a condition is true, throwing an {@link AssertionError} if
 * it does not become true during a given max time.
 * @param maxWait_ms max time to wait for true condition. Optional; defaults
 * to 30 * 1000 ms (30 seconds).
 * @param checkPeriod_ms period at which to try the condition. Optional; defaults
 * to 100 ms.
 * @param predicate the condition
 * @param errorMessage message use in the {@link AssertionError}
 * @throws Throwable on {@link AssertionError} or any other exception/error
 */
static public void waitForCondition(Integer maxWait_ms, Integer checkPeriod_ms, 
    Predicate predicate, String errorMessage) throws Throwable 
{
    waitForCondition(maxWait_ms, checkPeriod_ms, predicate, new Closure() {
        public void execute(Object errorMessage)
        {
            fail((String)errorMessage);
        }
    }, errorMessage);
}

/** Blocks until a condition is true, running a closure if
 * it does not become true during a given max time.
 * @param maxWait_ms max time to wait for true condition. Optional; defaults
 * to 30 * 1000 ms (30 seconds).
 * @param checkPeriod_ms period at which to try the condition. Optional; defaults
 * to 100 ms.
 * @param predicate the condition
 * @param closure closure to run
 * @param argument argument for closure
 * @throws Throwable on {@link AssertionError} or any other exception/error
 */
static public void waitForCondition(Integer maxWait_ms, Integer checkPeriod_ms, 
    Predicate predicate, Closure closure, Object argument) throws Throwable 
{
    if ( maxWait_ms == null )
        maxWait_ms = 30 * 1000;
    if ( checkPeriod_ms == null )
        checkPeriod_ms = 100;
    StopWatch stopWatch = new StopWatch();
    stopWatch.start();
    while ( !predicate.evaluate(null) ) {
        Thread.sleep(checkPeriod_ms);
        if ( stopWatch.getTime() > maxWait_ms ) {
            closure.execute(argument);
        }
    }
}

/** Calls {@link #waitForVerify(Integer, Object)} with <code>null</code>
 * for {@code maxWait_ms}
 */
static public void waitForVerify(Object easyMockProxy)
    throws Throwable
{
    waitForVerify(null, easyMockProxy);
}

/** Repeatedly calls {@link EasyMock#verify(Object[])} until it succeeds, or a
 * max wait time has elapsed.
 * @param maxWait_ms Max wait time. <code>null</code> defaults to 30s.
 * @param easyMockProxy Proxy to call verify on
 * @throws Throwable
 */
static public void waitForVerify(Integer maxWait_ms, Object easyMockProxy)
    throws Throwable
{
    if ( maxWait_ms == null )
        maxWait_ms = 30 * 1000;
    StopWatch stopWatch = new StopWatch();
    stopWatch.start();
    for(;;) {
        try
        {
            verify(easyMockProxy);
            break;
        }
        catch (AssertionError e)
        {
            if ( stopWatch.getTime() > maxWait_ms )
                throw e;
            Thread.sleep(100);
        }
    }
}

/** Returns a path to a directory in the temp dir with the name of the given
 * class. This is useful for temporary test files.
 * @param aClass test class for which to create dir
 * @return the path
 */
static public String getTestDirPathForTestClass(Object object) 
{

    String filename = object instanceof Class ? 
        ((Class)object).getName() :
        object.getClass().getName();
    return DRFileUtils.getTempDir() + File.separator + 
        filename;
}

static public byte[] createRandomByteArray(int bytesLength)
{
    byte[] sourceBytes = new byte[bytesLength];
    random.nextBytes(sourceBytes);
    return sourceBytes;
}

/** Returns <code>true</code> if the given object is an EasyMock mock object 
 */
static public boolean isEasyMockMock(Object object) {
    try {
        InvocationHandler invocationHandler = Proxy
                .getInvocationHandler(object);
        return invocationHandler.getClass().getName().contains("easymock");
    } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
        return false;
    }
}
}

清单3:

@Test
public void testSomething() {
    final AtomicBoolean called = new AtomicBoolean(false);
    subject.setCallback(new SomeCallback() {
        public void callback(Object arg) {
            // check arg here
            called.set(true);
        }
    });
    subject.run();
    assertTrue(called.get());
}

Pete Goodliffe有一个关于线程代码单元测试的系列。

是很困难的。我采用了更简单的方法，尽量将线程代码从实际测试中抽象出来。皮特确实提到了我分手的方式是错误的但我要么是正确的，要么就是我很幸运。