作为一种替代方法，您可以尝试测试异常实际上是在您的测试中的下两行中抛出的。

var testDelegate = () => MyService.Method(params);
Assert.Throws<Exception>(testDelegate);

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?)

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

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);
}

作为一种替代方法，您可以尝试测试异常实际上是在您的测试中的下两行中抛出的。

var testDelegate = () => MyService.Method(params);
Assert.Throws<Exception>(testDelegate);

使用ExpectedException时要谨慎，因为它可能导致如下所示的几个陷阱:

Link

在这里:

http://xunit.github.io/docs/comparisons.html

如果需要测试异常，有一些不太受欢迎的方法。您可以使用try{act/fail}catch{assert}方法，该方法对于除了ExpectedException之外不直接支持异常测试的框架非常有用。

更好的选择是使用xUnit。NET，这是一个非常现代的、前瞻性的、可扩展的单元测试框架，它已经从所有其他错误中吸取了教训，并进行了改进。Assert就是这样一种改进。它为断言异常提供了更好的语法。

你可以找到xUnit。NET在github: http://xunit.github.io/