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.

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。

这个问题发布已经有一段时间了，但仍然没有答案…

Kleolb02的答案很好。我会试着讲得更详细一些。

有一种方法，我在c#代码中练习过。对于单元测试，您应该能够编写可重复的测试，这是多线程代码中的最大挑战。因此，我的回答旨在将异步代码强制到同步工作的测试装置中。

这是Gerard Meszaros的书“xUnit测试模式”中的一个想法，被称为“Humble Object”(第695页):必须将核心逻辑代码和任何闻起来像异步代码的东西分开。这将产生一个用于核心逻辑的类，它同步地工作。

这将使您能够以同步方式测试核心逻辑代码。您可以绝对控制对核心逻辑进行调用的时间，因此可以进行可重复的测试。这就是分离核心逻辑和异步逻辑的好处。

这个核心逻辑需要由另一个类来包装，这个类负责异步接收对核心逻辑的调用，并将这些调用委托给核心逻辑。产品代码将只通过该类访问核心逻辑。因为这个类应该只委托调用，所以它是一个没有太多逻辑的非常“愚蠢”的类。因此，您可以将这个异步工作类的单元测试保持在最小值。

在此之上的任何测试(测试类之间的交互)都是组件测试。同样在这种情况下，如果你坚持使用“Humble Object”模式，你应该能够完全控制时间。

上周我花了大部分时间在大学图书馆学习并发代码的调试。核心问题是并发代码是不确定的。通常，学术调试可以分为三个阵营之一:

Event-trace/replay. This requires an event monitor and then reviewing the events that were sent. In a UT framework, this would involve manually sending the events as part of a test, and then doing post-mortem reviews. Scriptable. This is where you interact with the running code with a set of triggers. "On x > foo, baz()". This could be interpreted into a UT framework where you have a run-time system triggering a given test on a certain condition. Interactive. This obviously won't work in an automatic testing situation. ;)

现在，正如上面评论者所注意到的，您可以将并发系统设计成更确定的状态。然而，如果你做得不好，你就又回到了设计顺序系统的问题上。

我的建议是，专注于制定一个非常严格的设计协议，规定什么是线程，什么不是线程。如果你限制了你的接口，使元素之间的依赖最小化，那就容易多了。

祝你好运，继续解决这个问题。

(如果可能的话)不要使用线程，使用actor /活动对象。易于测试。

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()
    );
}