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
听着,要做到这一点并不容易。我正在做一个本来就是多线程的项目。事件来自操作系统,我必须并发地处理它们。
处理测试复杂的多线程应用程序代码的最简单方法是:如果它太复杂而无法测试,那么您做错了。如果您有一个单独的实例,其中有多个线程作用于它,并且您无法测试这些线程相互踩在一起的情况,那么您的设计需要重做。它既简单又复杂。
有许多方法可以为多线程编程,以避免线程同时通过实例运行。最简单的方法是使所有对象都是不可变的。当然,这通常是不可能的。因此,您必须在设计中确定线程与同一实例交互的地方,并减少这些地方的数量。通过这样做,您可以隔离多线程实际发生的几个类,从而降低测试系统的总体复杂性。
但是您必须意识到,即使这样做,您仍然不能测试两个线程相互践踏的每一种情况。要做到这一点,您必须在同一个测试中并发地运行两个线程,然后准确地控制它们在任何给定时刻执行的行。你能做的就是模拟这种情况。但这可能需要您专门为测试编写代码,这充其量是迈向真正解决方案的半步。
测试代码是否存在线程问题的最好方法可能是对代码进行静态分析。如果您的线程代码没有遵循有限的线程安全模式集,那么您可能会遇到问题。我相信VS中的代码分析确实包含了一些线程的知识,但可能不多。
看,就目前的情况来看(可能还会持续很长一段时间),测试多线程应用程序的最佳方法是尽可能降低线程代码的复杂性。最小化线程交互的区域,尽可能地进行测试,并使用代码分析来识别危险区域。
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。
有一些很好的工具。下面是一些Java的摘要。
一些好的静态分析工具包括FindBugs(提供了一些有用的提示)、JLint、Java Pathfinder (JPF & JPF2)和Bogor。
multithreaddtc是一个非常好的动态分析工具(集成到JUnit中),您必须在其中设置自己的测试用例。
IBM研究院的竞赛很有趣。它通过插入各种线程修改行为(例如sleep & yield)来检测你的代码,试图随机发现错误。
SPIN是对Java(和其他)组件建模的一个非常酷的工具,但是您需要一些有用的框架。它很难使用,但如果你知道如何使用它,它是非常强大的。相当多的工具在底层使用SPIN。
multithreaddtc可能是最主流的,但是上面列出的一些静态分析工具绝对值得一看。
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。
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()
);
}