下面的文章提出了两种解决方案。包装一个信号量(CountDownLatch)，并添加诸如从内部线程外部化数据之类的功能。实现此目的的另一种方法是使用线程池(请参阅兴趣点)。

喷头-高级同步对象

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。

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()
    );
}

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。

我喜欢编写两个或多个测试方法在并行线程上执行，并且每个方法都调用被测对象。我一直在使用Sleep()调用来协调来自不同线程的调用顺序，但这并不真正可靠。它也慢得多，因为你必须睡足够长的时间，时间通常是有效的。

我从编写FindBugs的同一组中找到了多线程TC Java库。它允许您在不使用Sleep()的情况下指定事件的顺序，而且它是可靠的。我还没试过。

这种方法的最大限制是它只允许您测试您怀疑会引起麻烦的场景。正如其他人所说，您确实需要将多线程代码隔离到少量简单类中，以便有希望彻底测试它们。

一旦您仔细测试了您预计会导致问题的场景，那么在类中抛出一堆并发请求的不科学测试是寻找意外问题的好方法。

更新:我已经玩了一些多线程TC Java库，它工作得很好。我还将它的一些特性移植到一个。net版本，我称之为TickingTest。

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.