我最近发现了一个叫做Threadsafe的工具(用于Java)。它是一个静态分析工具，很像findbugs，但专门用于发现多线程问题。它不是测试的替代品，但我可以推荐它作为编写可靠的多线程Java的一部分。

它甚至可以捕捉到一些非常微妙的潜在问题，比如类包容、通过并发类访问不安全的对象以及在使用双重检查锁定范式时发现丢失的volatile修饰符。

如果您编写多线程Java，请尝试一下。

我曾经有过测试线程代码的不幸任务，这绝对是我写过的最难的测试。

在编写测试时，我使用委托和事件的组合。基本上，它都是关于使用PropertyNotifyChanged事件和WaitCallback或某种轮询的ConditionalWaiter。

我不确定这是否是最好的方法，但它对我来说是有效的。

For J2E code, I've used SilkPerformer, LoadRunner and JMeter for concurrency testing of threads. They all do the same thing. Basically, they give you a relatively simple interface for administrating their version of the proxy server, required, in order to analyze the TCP/IP data stream, and simulate multiple users making simultaneous requests to your app server. The proxy server can give you the ability to do things like analyze the requests made, by presenting the whole page and URL sent to the server, as well as the response from the server, after processing the request.

您可以在不安全的http模式下找到一些错误，在这种模式下，您至少可以分析正在发送的表单数据，并为每个用户系统地更改表单数据。但真正的测试是在https(安全套接字层)中运行。然后，您还必须有系统地修改会话和cookie数据，这可能有点复杂。

在测试并发性时，我发现的最好的错误是，当我发现开发人员在登录时依赖Java垃圾收集来关闭登录时建立的到LDAP服务器的连接请求。这导致用户暴露在其他用户的会话中，当试图分析服务器瘫痪时发生了什么，几乎每隔几秒钟就能完成一次事务时，结果非常令人困惑。

In the end, you or someone will probably have to buckle down and analyze the code for blunders like the one I just mentioned. And an open discussion across departments, like the one that occurred, when we unfolded the problem described above, are most useful. But these tools are the best solution to testing multi-threaded code. JMeter is open source. SilkPerformer and LoadRunner are proprietary. If you really want to know whether your app is thread safe, that's how the big boys do it. I've done this for very large companies professionally, so I'm not guessing. I'm speaking from personal experience.

提醒一句:理解这些工具确实需要一些时间。这不是简单地安装软件并启动GUI的问题，除非您已经接触过多线程编程。我试图确定需要理解的3个关键领域(表单、会话和cookie数据)，希望至少从理解这些主题开始，可以帮助您集中精力快速获得结果，而不必通读整个文档。

看看我的相关答案在

为自定义Barrier设计一个Test类

它偏向于Java，但对选项进行了合理的总结。

总而言之(我认为)，它不是使用一些花哨的框架来确保正确性，而是如何设计你的多线程代码。拆分关注点(并发性和功能性)有助于提高信心。测试引导的面向对象软件的发展比我能更好地解释一些选项。

静态分析和形式化方法(参见并发性:状态模型和Java程序)是一种选择，但我发现它们在商业开发中用处有限。

不要忘记，任何加载/浸泡风格的测试都很少能保证突出问题。

好运！

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。

它并不完美，但我用c#写了这个帮助程序:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

namespace Proto.Promises.Tests.Threading
{
    public class ThreadHelper
    {
        public static readonly int multiThreadCount = Environment.ProcessorCount * 100;
        private static readonly int[] offsets = new int[] { 0, 10, 100, 1000 };

        private readonly Stack<Task> _executingTasks = new Stack<Task>(multiThreadCount);
        private readonly Barrier _barrier = new Barrier(1);
        private int _currentParticipants = 0;
        private readonly TimeSpan _timeout;

        public ThreadHelper() : this(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10)) { } // 10 second timeout should be enough for most cases.

        public ThreadHelper(TimeSpan timeout)
        {
            _timeout = timeout;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Execute the action multiple times in parallel threads.
        /// </summary>
        public void ExecuteMultiActionParallel(Action action)
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < multiThreadCount; ++i)
            {
                AddParallelAction(action);
            }
            ExecutePendingParallelActions();
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Execute the action once in a separate thread.
        /// </summary>
        public void ExecuteSingleAction(Action action)
        {
            AddParallelAction(action);
            ExecutePendingParallelActions();
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Add an action to be run in parallel.
        /// </summary>
        public void AddParallelAction(Action action)
        {
            var taskSource = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
            lock (_executingTasks)
            {
                ++_currentParticipants;
                _barrier.AddParticipant();
                _executingTasks.Push(taskSource.Task);
            }
            new Thread(() =>
            {
                try
                {
                    _barrier.SignalAndWait(); // Try to make actions run in lock-step to increase likelihood of breaking race conditions.
                    action.Invoke();
                    taskSource.SetResult(true);
                }
                catch (Exception e)
                {
                    taskSource.SetException(e);
                }
            }).Start();
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Runs the pending actions in parallel, attempting to run them in lock-step.
        /// </summary>
        public void ExecutePendingParallelActions()
        {
            Task[] tasks;
            lock (_executingTasks)
            {
                _barrier.SignalAndWait();
                _barrier.RemoveParticipants(_currentParticipants);
                _currentParticipants = 0;
                tasks = _executingTasks.ToArray();
                _executingTasks.Clear();
            }
            try
            {
                if (!Task.WaitAll(tasks, _timeout))
                {
                    throw new TimeoutException($"Action(s) timed out after {_timeout}, there may be a deadlock.");
                }
            }
            catch (AggregateException e)
            {
                // Only throw one exception instead of aggregate to try to avoid overloading the test error output.
                throw e.Flatten().InnerException;
            }
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Run each action in parallel multiple times with differing offsets for each run.
        /// <para/>The number of runs is 4^actions.Length, so be careful if you don't want the test to run too long.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="expandToProcessorCount">If true, copies each action on additional threads up to the processor count. This can help test more without increasing the time it takes to complete.
        /// <para/>Example: 2 actions with 6 processors, runs each action 3 times in parallel.</param>
        /// <param name="setup">The action to run before each parallel run.</param>
        /// <param name="teardown">The action to run after each parallel run.</param>
        /// <param name="actions">The actions to run in parallel.</param>
        public void ExecuteParallelActionsWithOffsets(bool expandToProcessorCount, Action setup, Action teardown, params Action[] actions)
        {
            setup += () => { };
            teardown += () => { };
            int actionCount = actions.Length;
            int expandCount = expandToProcessorCount ? Math.Max(Environment.ProcessorCount / actionCount, 1) : 1;
            foreach (var combo in GenerateCombinations(offsets, actionCount))
            {
                setup.Invoke();
                for (int k = 0; k < expandCount; ++k)
                {
                    for (int i = 0; i < actionCount; ++i)
                    {
                        int offset = combo[i];
                        Action action = actions[i];
                        AddParallelAction(() =>
                        {
                            for (int j = offset; j > 0; --j) { } // Just spin in a loop for the offset.
                            action.Invoke();
                        });
                    }
                }
                ExecutePendingParallelActions();
                teardown.Invoke();
            }
        }

        // Input: [1, 2, 3], 3
        // Ouput: [
        //          [1, 1, 1],
        //          [2, 1, 1],
        //          [3, 1, 1],
        //          [1, 2, 1],
        //          [2, 2, 1],
        //          [3, 2, 1],
        //          [1, 3, 1],
        //          [2, 3, 1],
        //          [3, 3, 1],
        //          [1, 1, 2],
        //          [2, 1, 2],
        //          [3, 1, 2],
        //          [1, 2, 2],
        //          [2, 2, 2],
        //          [3, 2, 2],
        //          [1, 3, 2],
        //          [2, 3, 2],
        //          [3, 3, 2],
        //          [1, 1, 3],
        //          [2, 1, 3],
        //          [3, 1, 3],
        //          [1, 2, 3],
        //          [2, 2, 3],
        //          [3, 2, 3],
        //          [1, 3, 3],
        //          [2, 3, 3],
        //          [3, 3, 3]
        //        ]
        private static IEnumerable<int[]> GenerateCombinations(int[] options, int count)
        {
            int[] indexTracker = new int[count];
            int[] combo = new int[count];
            for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i)
            {
                combo[i] = options[0];
            }
            // Same algorithm as picking a combination lock.
            int rollovers = 0;
            while (rollovers < count)
            {
                yield return combo; // No need to duplicate the array since we're just reading it.
                for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i)
                {
                    int index = ++indexTracker[i];
                    if (index == options.Length)
                    {
                        indexTracker[i] = 0;
                        combo[i] = options[0];
                        if (i == rollovers)
                        {
                            ++rollovers;
                        }
                    }
                    else
                    {
                        combo[i] = options[index];
                        break;
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

使用示例:

[Test]
public void DeferredMayBeBeResolvedAndPromiseAwaitedConcurrently_void0()
{
    Promise.Deferred deferred = default(Promise.Deferred);
    Promise promise = default(Promise);

    int invokedCount = 0;

    var threadHelper = new ThreadHelper();
    threadHelper.ExecuteParallelActionsWithOffsets(false,
        // Setup
        () =>
        {
            invokedCount = 0;
            deferred = Promise.NewDeferred();
            promise = deferred.Promise;
        },
        // Teardown
        () => Assert.AreEqual(1, invokedCount),
        // Parallel Actions
        () => deferred.Resolve(),
        () => promise.Then(() => { Interlocked.Increment(ref invokedCount); }).Forget()
    );
}