查看nUnit文档中的例子:

[ExpectedException( typeof( ArgumentException ) )]

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();
}

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());

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);
}

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。

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