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");
}

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。

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()

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);
}

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