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);

这是测试方法的一个属性…你不使用Assert。看起来是这样的:

[ExpectedException(typeof(ExceptionType))]
public void YourMethod_should_throw_exception()

这取决于您使用的测试框架?

例如，在MbUnit中，您可以用一个属性指定预期的异常，以确保您得到的是真正预期的异常。

[ExpectedException(typeof(ArgumentException))]

既然您提到了使用其他测试类，那么比ExpectedException属性更好的选择是使用Shoudly的Should.Throw。

Should.Throw<DivideByZeroException>(() => { MyDivideMethod(1, 0); });

假设我们有一个需求，客户必须有一个地址才能创建订单。如果不是，CreateOrderForCustomer方法应该导致一个ArgumentException。那么我们可以这样写:

[TestMethod]
public void NullUserIdInConstructor()
{
  var customer = new Customer(name := "Justin", address := null};

  Should.Throw<ArgumentException>(() => {
    var order = CreateOrderForCustomer(customer) });
}

这比使用ExpectedException属性更好，因为我们明确了应该抛出错误的内容。这使得测试中的需求更加清晰，并且在测试失败时更容易诊断。

注意这里还有一个Should。ThrowAsync用于异步方法测试。

您可以通过简单的一行代码来实现这一点。

如果你的foo.bar()操作是异步的:

await Assert.ThrowsExceptionAsync<Exception>(() => foo.bar());

如果foo.bar()不是异步的

Assert.ThrowsException<Exception>(() => foo.bar());