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);
}

对于“Visual Studio Team Test”，似乎您将ExpectedException属性应用到测试的方法。

文档中的示例:使用Visual Studio团队测试的单元测试演练

[TestMethod]
[ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentException),
    "A userId of null was inappropriately allowed.")]
public void NullUserIdInConstructor()
{
   LogonInfo logonInfo = new LogonInfo(null, "P@ss0word");
}

通常你的测试框架会给出答案。但如果它不够灵活，你可以这样做:

try {
    somethingThatShouldThrowAnException();
    Assert.Fail(); // If it gets to this line, no exception was thrown
} catch (GoodException) { }

正如@Jonas指出的，这并不适用于捕捉基本异常:

try {
    somethingThatShouldThrowAnException();
    Assert.Fail(); // raises AssertionException
} catch (Exception) {
    // Catches the assertion exception, and the test passes
}

如果绝对必须捕获Exception，则需要重新抛出Assert.Fail()。但实际上，这是一个你不应该手写的信号;检查测试框架中的选项，或者查看是否可以抛出更有意义的异常进行测试。

catch (AssertionException) { throw; }

您应该能够根据自己的需要调整这种方法——包括指定要捕获的异常类型。如果你只期望某些类型，完成catch块:

} catch (GoodException) {
} catch (Exception) {
    // not the right kind of exception
    Assert.Fail();
}

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

在使用NUnit的情况下，试试这个:

Assert.That(() =>
        {
            Your_Method_To_Test();
        }, Throws.TypeOf<Your_Specific_Exception>().With.Message.EqualTo("Your_Specific_Message"));

有一个很棒的库叫做NFluent，它可以加速和简化你编写断言的方式。

编写抛出异常的断言非常简单:

    [Test]
    public void given_when_then()
    {
        Check.ThatCode(() => MethodToTest())
            .Throws<Exception>()
            .WithMessage("Process has been failed");
    }