到目前为止,我已经避免了测试多线程代码的噩梦,因为它似乎是一个太大的雷区。我想知道人们是如何测试依赖于线程的代码以获得成功执行的,或者人们是如何测试那些仅在两个线程以给定方式交互时才会出现的问题的?
对于今天的程序员来说,这似乎是一个非常关键的问题,恕我直言,将我们的知识集中在这个问题上是很有用的。
到目前为止,我已经避免了测试多线程代码的噩梦,因为它似乎是一个太大的雷区。我想知道人们是如何测试依赖于线程的代码以获得成功执行的,或者人们是如何测试那些仅在两个线程以给定方式交互时才会出现的问题的?
对于今天的程序员来说,这似乎是一个非常关键的问题,恕我直言,将我们的知识集中在这个问题上是很有用的。
当前回答
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.
其他回答
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。
测试线程代码和非常复杂的系统的另一种方法是通过模糊测试。 它不是很好,也不能找到所有的东西,但它可能是有用的,而且操作简单。
引用:
Fuzz testing or fuzzing is a software testing technique that provides random data("fuzz") to the inputs of a program. If the program fails (for example, by crashing, or by failing built-in code assertions), the defects can be noted. The great advantage of fuzz testing is that the test design is extremely simple, and free of preconceptions about system behavior. ... Fuzz testing is often used in large software development projects that employ black box testing. These projects usually have a budget to develop test tools, and fuzz testing is one of the techniques which offers a high benefit to cost ratio. ... However, fuzz testing is not a substitute for exhaustive testing or formal methods: it can only provide a random sample of the system's behavior, and in many cases passing a fuzz test may only demonstrate that a piece of software handles exceptions without crashing, rather than behaving correctly. Thus, fuzz testing can only be regarded as a bug-finding tool rather than an assurance of quality.
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。
我做过很多这样的事,的确很糟糕。
一些建议:
GroboUtils for running multiple test threads alphaWorks ConTest to instrument classes to cause interleavings to vary between iterations Create a throwable field and check it in tearDown (see Listing 1). If you catch a bad exception in another thread, just assign it to throwable. I created the utils class in Listing 2 and have found it invaluable, especially waitForVerify and waitForCondition, which will greatly increase the performance of your tests. Make good use of AtomicBoolean in your tests. It is thread safe, and you'll often need a final reference type to store values from callback classes and suchlike. See example in Listing 3. Make sure to always give your test a timeout (e.g., @Test(timeout=60*1000)), as concurrency tests can sometimes hang forever when they're broken.
清单1:
@After
public void tearDown() {
if ( throwable != null )
throw throwable;
}
清单2:
import static org.junit.Assert.fail;
import java.io.File;
import java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler;
import java.lang.reflect.Proxy;
import java.util.Random;
import org.apache.commons.collections.Closure;
import org.apache.commons.collections.Predicate;
import org.apache.commons.lang.time.StopWatch;
import org.easymock.EasyMock;
import org.easymock.classextension.internal.ClassExtensionHelper;
import static org.easymock.classextension.EasyMock.*;
import ca.digitalrapids.io.DRFileUtils;
/**
* Various utilities for testing
*/
public abstract class DRTestUtils
{
static private Random random = new Random();
/** Calls {@link #waitForCondition(Integer, Integer, Predicate, String)} with
* default max wait and check period values.
*/
static public void waitForCondition(Predicate predicate, String errorMessage)
throws Throwable
{
waitForCondition(null, null, predicate, errorMessage);
}
/** Blocks until a condition is true, throwing an {@link AssertionError} if
* it does not become true during a given max time.
* @param maxWait_ms max time to wait for true condition. Optional; defaults
* to 30 * 1000 ms (30 seconds).
* @param checkPeriod_ms period at which to try the condition. Optional; defaults
* to 100 ms.
* @param predicate the condition
* @param errorMessage message use in the {@link AssertionError}
* @throws Throwable on {@link AssertionError} or any other exception/error
*/
static public void waitForCondition(Integer maxWait_ms, Integer checkPeriod_ms,
Predicate predicate, String errorMessage) throws Throwable
{
waitForCondition(maxWait_ms, checkPeriod_ms, predicate, new Closure() {
public void execute(Object errorMessage)
{
fail((String)errorMessage);
}
}, errorMessage);
}
/** Blocks until a condition is true, running a closure if
* it does not become true during a given max time.
* @param maxWait_ms max time to wait for true condition. Optional; defaults
* to 30 * 1000 ms (30 seconds).
* @param checkPeriod_ms period at which to try the condition. Optional; defaults
* to 100 ms.
* @param predicate the condition
* @param closure closure to run
* @param argument argument for closure
* @throws Throwable on {@link AssertionError} or any other exception/error
*/
static public void waitForCondition(Integer maxWait_ms, Integer checkPeriod_ms,
Predicate predicate, Closure closure, Object argument) throws Throwable
{
if ( maxWait_ms == null )
maxWait_ms = 30 * 1000;
if ( checkPeriod_ms == null )
checkPeriod_ms = 100;
StopWatch stopWatch = new StopWatch();
stopWatch.start();
while ( !predicate.evaluate(null) ) {
Thread.sleep(checkPeriod_ms);
if ( stopWatch.getTime() > maxWait_ms ) {
closure.execute(argument);
}
}
}
/** Calls {@link #waitForVerify(Integer, Object)} with <code>null</code>
* for {@code maxWait_ms}
*/
static public void waitForVerify(Object easyMockProxy)
throws Throwable
{
waitForVerify(null, easyMockProxy);
}
/** Repeatedly calls {@link EasyMock#verify(Object[])} until it succeeds, or a
* max wait time has elapsed.
* @param maxWait_ms Max wait time. <code>null</code> defaults to 30s.
* @param easyMockProxy Proxy to call verify on
* @throws Throwable
*/
static public void waitForVerify(Integer maxWait_ms, Object easyMockProxy)
throws Throwable
{
if ( maxWait_ms == null )
maxWait_ms = 30 * 1000;
StopWatch stopWatch = new StopWatch();
stopWatch.start();
for(;;) {
try
{
verify(easyMockProxy);
break;
}
catch (AssertionError e)
{
if ( stopWatch.getTime() > maxWait_ms )
throw e;
Thread.sleep(100);
}
}
}
/** Returns a path to a directory in the temp dir with the name of the given
* class. This is useful for temporary test files.
* @param aClass test class for which to create dir
* @return the path
*/
static public String getTestDirPathForTestClass(Object object)
{
String filename = object instanceof Class ?
((Class)object).getName() :
object.getClass().getName();
return DRFileUtils.getTempDir() + File.separator +
filename;
}
static public byte[] createRandomByteArray(int bytesLength)
{
byte[] sourceBytes = new byte[bytesLength];
random.nextBytes(sourceBytes);
return sourceBytes;
}
/** Returns <code>true</code> if the given object is an EasyMock mock object
*/
static public boolean isEasyMockMock(Object object) {
try {
InvocationHandler invocationHandler = Proxy
.getInvocationHandler(object);
return invocationHandler.getClass().getName().contains("easymock");
} catch (IllegalArgumentException e) {
return false;
}
}
}
清单3:
@Test
public void testSomething() {
final AtomicBoolean called = new AtomicBoolean(false);
subject.setCallback(new SomeCallback() {
public void callback(Object arg) {
// check arg here
called.set(true);
}
});
subject.run();
assertTrue(called.get());
}
(如果可能的话)不要使用线程,使用actor /活动对象。易于测试。