我喜欢已经给出的一些答案，但我想演示一种不同的技术，这种技术在测试遗留代码时通常很有用。给出如下代码:

public class Foo {
  public void bar(int i) {
    if (i < 0) {
      System.exit(i);
    }
  }
}

您可以进行安全重构来创建包装系统的方法。退出电话:

public class Foo {
  public void bar(int i) {
    if (i < 0) {
      exit(i);
    }
  }

  void exit(int i) {
    System.exit(i);
  }
}

然后你可以为你的测试创建一个覆盖exit的假的:

public class TestFoo extends TestCase {

  public void testShouldExitWithNegativeNumbers() {
    TestFoo foo = new TestFoo();
    foo.bar(-1);
    assertTrue(foo.exitCalled);
    assertEquals(-1, foo.exitValue);
  }

  private class TestFoo extends Foo {
    boolean exitCalled;
    int exitValue;
    void exit(int i) {
      exitCalled = true;
      exitValue = i;
    }
}

这是一种用行为代替测试用例的通用技术，我在重构遗留代码时一直使用它。这通常不是我要留下东西的地方，而是测试现有代码的中间步骤。

使用运行时。exec(字符串命令)在单独的进程中启动JVM。

在某些环境中，返回的退出代码由调用程序使用(例如MS批处理中的ERRORLEVEL)。我们对代码中执行此操作的主要方法进行了测试，我们的方法是使用类似于在这里的其他测试中使用的SecurityManager重写。

昨晚，我使用Junit @Rule注释组合了一个小JAR，以隐藏安全管理器代码，并根据预期的返回代码添加期望。http://code.google.com/p/junitsystemrules/

为了让VonC在JUnit 4上运行，我修改了如下代码

protected static class ExitException extends SecurityException {
    private static final long serialVersionUID = -1982617086752946683L;
    public final int status;

    public ExitException(int status) {
        super("There is no escape!");
        this.status = status;
    }
}

private static class NoExitSecurityManager extends SecurityManager {
    @Override
    public void checkPermission(Permission perm) {
        // allow anything.
    }

    @Override
    public void checkPermission(Permission perm, Object context) {
        // allow anything.
    }

    @Override
    public void checkExit(int status) {
        super.checkExit(status);
        throw new ExitException(status);
    }
}

private SecurityManager securityManager;

@Before
public void setUp() {
    securityManager = System.getSecurityManager();
    System.setSecurityManager(new NoExitSecurityManager());
}

@After
public void tearDown() {
    System.setSecurityManager(securityManager);
}

实际上，您可以模拟或排除该系统。exit方法，在JUnit测试中。

例如，使用JMockit你可以这样写(也有其他方法):

@Test
public void mockSystemExit(@Mocked("exit") System mockSystem)
{
    // Called by code under test:
    System.exit(); // will not exit the program
}

编辑:替代测试(使用最新的JMockit API)，它不允许任何代码在调用System.exit(n)后运行:

@Test(expected = EOFException.class)
public void checkingForSystemExitWhileNotAllowingCodeToContinueToRun() {
    new Expectations(System.class) {{ System.exit(anyInt); result = new EOFException(); }};

    // From the code under test:
    System.exit(1);
    System.out.println("This will never run (and not exit either)");
}

Another technique here is to introduce additional code into the (hopefully small number of) places where the logic does the System.exit(). This additional code then avoids doing the System.exit() when the logic is being called as part of unit test. For example, define a package private constant like TEST_MODE which is normally false. Then have the unit test code set this true and add logic to the code under test to check for that case and bypass the System.exit call and instead throw an exception that the unit test logic can catch. By the way, in 2021 and using something like spotbugs, this problem can manifest itself in the obscure error that "java.io.IOException: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host".