假设在“多线程”代码下是指某些东西

有状态和可变的 由多个线程访问/修改 同时

换句话说，我们讨论的是测试自定义的有状态线程安全类/方法/单元——这应该是当今非常罕见的野兽。

因为这个野兽很罕见，首先我们需要确保有充分的理由来写它。

步骤1。考虑在相同的同步上下文中修改状态。

现在很容易编写可组合的并发和异步代码，其中IO或其他慢操作卸载到后台，但共享状态在一个同步上下文中更新和查询。例如，async/await任务和。net中的Rx等等——它们都是可测试的设计，“真正的”任务和调度程序可以被取代，以使测试具有确定性(但这超出了问题的范围)。

这听起来可能很有限，但这种方法效果惊人。以这种风格编写整个应用程序是可能的，而不需要使任何状态线程安全(我这样做)。

步骤2。如果在单个同步上下文上操作共享状态是绝对不可能的。

确保轮子没有被重新发明/肯定没有标准的替代方案可以适应这项工作。代码应该是非常内聚的，包含在一个单元中，例如，它很有可能是一些标准的线程安全数据结构的特殊情况，如哈希映射或集合或其他。

注意:如果代码很大/跨越多个类并且需要多线程状态操作，那么设计很有可能是不好的，请重新考虑第1步

步骤3。如果达到了这一步，那么我们需要测试我们自己的自定义有状态线程安全类/方法/单元。

我非常诚实:我从来没有为这样的代码编写过合适的测试。大多数情况下，我在第一步就成功了，有时在第二步。上次我不得不编写自定义线程安全代码是在很多年前，那是在我采用单元测试之前/可能我不需要用目前的知识来编写它。

如果我真的必须测试这样的代码(最终，真正的答案)，那么我会尝试下面的一些事情

Non-deterministic stress testing. e.g. run 100 threads simultaneously and check that end result is consistent. This is more typical for higher level / integration testing of multiple users scenarios but also can be used at the unit level. Expose some test 'hooks' where test can inject some code to help make deterministic scenarios where one thread must perform operation before the other. As ugly as it is, I can't think of anything better. Delay-driven testing to make threads run and perform operations in particular order. Strictly speaking such tests are non-deterministic too (there's a chance of system freeze / stop-the-world GC collection which can distort otherwise orchestrated delays), also it is ugly but allows to avoid hooks.

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。

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。

如果你正在测试简单的new Thread(runnable).run() 您可以模拟Thread来按顺序运行可运行对象

例如，如果被测试对象的代码像这样调用一个新线程

Class TestedClass {
    public void doAsychOp() {
       new Thread(new myRunnable()).start();
    }
}

然后模拟new Threads并按顺序运行runable参数会有所帮助

@Mock
private Thread threadMock;

@Test
public void myTest() throws Exception {
    PowerMockito.mockStatic(Thread.class);
    //when new thread is created execute runnable immediately 
    PowerMockito.whenNew(Thread.class).withAnyArguments().then(new Answer<Thread>() {
        @Override
        public Thread answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
            // immediately run the runnable
            Runnable runnable = invocation.getArgumentAt(0, Runnable.class);
            if(runnable != null) {
                runnable.run();
            }
            return threadMock;//return a mock so Thread.start() will do nothing         
        }
    }); 
    TestedClass testcls = new TestedClass()
    testcls.doAsychOp(); //will invoke myRunnable.run in current thread
    //.... check expected 
}

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()
    );
}

一个简单的测试模式可以用于一些(不是所有!)用例，就是多次重复相同的测试。例如，假设你有一个方法:

def process(input):
    # Spawns several threads to do the job
    # ...
    return output

创建一堆测试:

process(input1) -> expect to return output1
process(input2) -> expect to return output2
...

现在将每个测试运行多次。

如果流程的实现包含一个微小的错误(例如死锁、竞态条件等)，出现的概率为0.1%，那么运行1000次测试，则该错误至少出现一次的概率为64%。运行测试10000次，得到>99%的概率。