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。

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。

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。

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)

我用与处理任何单元测试相同的方式处理线程组件的单元测试，即使用反转控制和隔离框架。我在. net领域进行开发，开箱即用的线程(以及其他东西)很难(我可以说几乎不可能)完全隔离。

因此，我写的包装器看起来像这样(简化):

public interface IThread
{
    void Start();
    ...
}

public class ThreadWrapper : IThread
{
    private readonly Thread _thread;
     
    public ThreadWrapper(ThreadStart threadStart)
    {
        _thread = new Thread(threadStart);
    }

    public Start()
    {
        _thread.Start();
    }
}
    
public interface IThreadingManager
{
    IThread CreateThread(ThreadStart threadStart);
}

public class ThreadingManager : IThreadingManager
{
    public IThread CreateThread(ThreadStart threadStart)
    {
         return new ThreadWrapper(threadStart)
    }
}

从那里，我可以很容易地将IThreadingManager注入到组件中，并使用所选的隔离框架使线程在测试期间的行为符合我的预期。

到目前为止，这对我来说工作得很好，我对线程池，系统中的东西使用相同的方法。环境，睡眠等等。

近年来，在为几个项目编写线程处理代码时，我多次遇到过这个问题。我提供了一个迟来的答案，因为大多数其他答案虽然提供了替代方案，但实际上并没有回答关于测试的问题。我的答案是针对多线程代码没有替代方案的情况;为了完整性，我将讨论代码设计问题，但也将讨论单元测试。

编写可测试的多线程代码

首先要做的是将生产线程处理代码与所有执行实际数据处理的代码分开。这样，数据处理就可以作为单线程代码进行测试，多线程代码所做的唯一事情就是协调线程。

The second thing to remember is that bugs in multithreaded code are probabilistic; the bugs that manifest themselves least frequently are the bugs that will sneak through into production, will be difficult to reproduce even in production, and will thus cause the biggest problems. For this reason, the standard coding approach of writing the code quickly and then debugging it until it works is a bad idea for multithreaded code; it will result in code where the easy bugs are fixed and the dangerous bugs are still there.

相反，在编写多线程代码时，必须抱着一种从一开始就避免编写错误的态度来编写代码。如果您已经正确地删除了数据处理代码，线程处理代码应该足够小——最好只有几行，最坏也就几十行——这样您就有机会在不编写错误的情况下编写它，当然也不会编写很多错误，如果您了解线程，请慢慢来，并且小心。

为多线程代码编写单元测试

一旦尽可能仔细地编写了多线程代码，仍然值得为该代码编写测试。测试的主要目的与其说是测试高度依赖于时间的竞争条件错误(不可能重复测试这种竞争条件)，不如说是测试防止这种错误的锁定策略是否允许多个线程按预期进行交互。

To properly test correct locking behavior, a test must start multiple threads. To make the test repeatable, we want the interactions between the threads to happen in a predictable order. We don't want to externally synchronize the threads in the test, because that will mask bugs that could happen in production where the threads are not externally synchronized. That leaves the use of timing delays for thread synchronization, which is the technique that I have used successfully whenever I've had to write tests of multithreaded code.

If the delays are too short, then the test becomes fragile, because minor timing differences - say between different machines on which the tests may be run - may cause the timing to be off and the test to fail. What I've typically done is start with delays that cause test failures, increase the delays so that the test passes reliably on my development machine, and then double the delays beyond that so the test has a good chance of passing on other machines. This does mean that the test will take a macroscopic amount of time, though in my experience, careful test design can limit that time to no more than a dozen seconds. Since you shouldn't have very many places requiring thread coordination code in your application, that should be acceptable for your test suite.

Finally, keep track of the number of bugs caught by your test. If your test has 80% code coverage, it can be expected to catch about 80% of your bugs. If your test is well designed but finds no bugs, there's a reasonable chance that you don't have additional bugs that will only show up in production. If the test catches one or two bugs, you might still get lucky. Beyond that, and you may want to consider a careful review of or even a complete rewrite of your thread handling code, since it is likely that code still contains hidden bugs that will be very difficult to find until the code is in production, and very difficult to fix then.