如果你使用NUNIT，你可以这样做:

Assert.Throws<ExpectedException>(() => methodToTest());

也可以存储抛出的异常以便进一步验证:

ExpectedException ex = Assert.Throws<ExpectedException>(() => methodToTest());
Assert.AreEqual( "Expected message text.", ex.Message );
Assert.AreEqual( 5, ex.SomeNumber);

参见:http://nunit.org/docs/2.5/exceptionAsserts.html

在我正在做的一个项目中，我们有另一个解决方案。

首先，我不喜欢ExpectedExceptionAttribute，因为它确实考虑了导致异常的方法调用。

我用一个helper方法来代替它。

Test

[TestMethod]
public void AccountRepository_ThrowsExceptionIfFileisCorrupt()
{
     var file = File.Create("Accounts.bin");
     file.WriteByte(1);
     file.Close();

     IAccountRepository repo = new FileAccountRepository();
     TestHelpers.AssertThrows<SerializationException>(()=>repo.GetAll());            
}

HelperMethod

public static TException AssertThrows<TException>(Action action) where TException : Exception
    {
        try
        {
            action();
        }
        catch (TException ex)
        {
            return ex;
        }
        Assert.Fail("Expected exception was not thrown");

        return null;
    }

很整洁，不是吗?)

Even though this is an old question, I would like to add a new thought to the discussion. I have extended the Arrange, Act, Assert pattern to be Expected, Arrange, Act, Assert. You can make an expected exception pointer, then assert it was assigned to. This feels cleaner than doing your Asserts in a catch block, leaving your Act section mostly just for the one line of code to call the method under test. You also don't have to Assert.Fail(); or return from multiple points in the code. Any other exception thrown will cause the test to fail, because it won't be caught, and if an exception of your expected type is thrown, but the it wasn't the one you were expecting, Asserting against the message or other properties of the exception help make sure your test won't pass inadvertently.

[TestMethod]
public void Bar_InvalidDependency_ThrowsInvalidOperationException()
{
    // Expectations
    InvalidOperationException expectedException = null;
    string expectedExceptionMessage = "Bar did something invalid.";

    // Arrange
    IDependency dependency = DependencyMocks.Create();
    Foo foo = new Foo(dependency);

    // Act
    try
    {
        foo.Bar();
    }
    catch (InvalidOperationException ex)
    {
        expectedException = ex;
    }

    // Assert
    Assert.IsNotNull(expectedException);
    Assert.AreEqual(expectedExceptionMessage, expectedException.Message);
}

在VS内置单元测试中，如果你只是想验证抛出了“任何异常”，但你不知道类型，你可以使用catch all:

[TestMethod]
[ExpectedException(typeof(Exception), AllowDerivedTypes = true)]
public void ThrowExceptionTest()
{
    //...
}

我最喜欢的实现方法是编写一个名为Throws的方法，并像使用其他Assert方法一样使用它。不幸的是，.NET不允许你编写静态扩展方法，所以你不能像使用Assert类中的构建一样使用这个方法;创建另一个MyAssert或类似的东西。类看起来像这样:

using System;
using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting;

namespace YourProject.Tests
{
    public static class MyAssert
    {
        public static void Throws<T>( Action func ) where T : Exception
        {
            var exceptionThrown = false;
            try
            {
                func.Invoke();
            }
            catch ( T )
            {
                exceptionThrown = true;
            }

            if ( !exceptionThrown )
            {
                throw new AssertFailedException(
                    String.Format("An exception of type {0} was expected, but not thrown", typeof(T))
                    );
            }
        }
    }
}

这意味着你的单元测试看起来是这样的:

[TestMethod()]
public void ExceptionTest()
{
    String testStr = null;
    MyAssert.Throws<NullReferenceException>(() => testStr.ToUpper());
}

它的外观和行为更像单元测试语法的其余部分。

我不建议使用ExpectedException属性(因为它约束太大，容易出错)，也不建议在每个测试中编写一个try/catch块(因为它太复杂，容易出错)。使用设计良好的断言方法——可以由您的测试框架提供，也可以自己编写。下面是我写的和用的。

public static class ExceptionAssert
{
    private static T GetException<T>(Action action, string message="") where T : Exception
    {
        try
        {
            action();
        }
        catch (T exception)
        {
            return exception;
        }
        throw new AssertFailedException("Expected exception " + typeof(T).FullName + ", but none was propagated.  " + message);
    }

    public static void Propagates<T>(Action action) where T : Exception
    {
        Propagates<T>(action, "");
    }

    public static void Propagates<T>(Action action, string message) where T : Exception
    {
        GetException<T>(action, message);
    }

    public static void Propagates<T>(Action action, Action<T> validation) where T : Exception
    {
        Propagates(action, validation, "");
    }

    public static void Propagates<T>(Action action, Action<T> validation, string message) where T : Exception
    {
        validation(GetException<T>(action, message));
    }
}

使用示例:

    [TestMethod]
    public void Run_PropagatesWin32Exception_ForInvalidExeFile()
    {
        (test setup that might propagate Win32Exception)
        ExceptionAssert.Propagates<Win32Exception>(
            () => CommandExecutionUtil.Run(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location, new string[0]));
        (more asserts or something)
    }

    [TestMethod]
    public void Run_PropagatesFileNotFoundException_ForExecutableNotFound()
    {
        (test setup that might propagate FileNotFoundException)
        ExceptionAssert.Propagates<FileNotFoundException>(
            () => CommandExecutionUtil.Run("NotThere.exe", new string[0]),
            e => StringAssert.Contains(e.Message, "NotThere.exe"));
        (more asserts or something)
    }

笔记

返回异常而不是支持验证回调是一个合理的想法，只是这样做会使这个断言的调用语法与我使用的其他断言非常不同。

与其他人不同，我使用“propagates”而不是“throws”，因为我们只能测试异常是否从调用中传播。我们不能直接测试是否抛出了异常。但我想你可以把投掷想象成:被扔出去而没有被接住。

最后认为

在切换到这种方法之前，我考虑过在测试只验证异常类型时使用ExpectedException属性，在需要更多验证时使用try/catch块。但是，我不仅要考虑在每个测试中使用哪种技术，而且随着需求的变化将代码从一种技术更改为另一种技术也不是一件简单的工作。使用一种一致的方法可以节省脑力。

总而言之，这种方法具有易用性、灵活性和健壮性(很难做错)。

更新

我的方法对于mstest V2来说不再有价值了，它似乎已经在2018年问世了。使用Assert.ThrowsException。

除非你一直在使用旧版本的mstest。那么，我的方法仍然适用。