我知道这个帖子很老了，有很多很好的答案，但值得一提的是，局部函数可以以一种非常简单的方式提供帮助。

//Arrange

//Act
void LocalFunction() => mr.ActualMethod(params);

//Assert
Assert.Throws<Exception>(LocalFunction);

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

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);
}