将Debug.Assert()放在代码中任何需要进行完整性检查以确保不变量的地方。当编译Release版本时(即没有DEBUG编译器常量)，对DEBUG . assert()的调用将被删除，因此它们不会影响性能。

在调用Debug.Assert()之前仍然应该抛出异常。断言只是确保在开发过程中一切都如预期的那样。

我不知道它在c#和。net中是怎样的，但在C中assert()只在使用- ddebug编译时工作-如果没有编译，最终用户将永远不会看到assert()。仅供开发人员使用。我经常使用它，它有时更容易跟踪错误。

我不会在产品代码中使用它们。抛出异常，捕获和记录。

在asp.net中也需要小心，因为断言可以显示在控制台上并冻结请求。

使用断言检查开发人员的假设，使用异常检查环境的假设。

如果您希望在生产代码中使用断言(即发布构建)，您可以使用Trace。Assert而不是Debug.Assert。

这当然会增加生产可执行文件的开销。

此外，如果您的应用程序在用户界面模式下运行，则默认情况下将显示断言对话框，这可能会让您的用户感到不安。

您可以通过删除DefaultTraceListener来覆盖这种行为:查看Trace的文档。MSDN中的侦听器。

总之,

使用调试。自由断言，以帮助在调试版本中捕获错误。 如果你使用Trace。在用户界面模式下断言，您可能希望删除DefaultTraceListener以避免让用户感到不安。 如果你测试的条件是你的应用程序无法处理的，你可能最好抛出一个异常，以确保执行不会继续。请注意，用户可以选择忽略断言。

您应该使用Debug。断言来测试程序中的逻辑错误。编译器只能通知您语法错误。因此，您肯定应该使用Assert语句来测试逻辑错误。比如测试一个销售汽车的项目，只有蓝色的宝马可以得到15%的折扣。编译器不能告诉你你的程序在执行这个操作时逻辑上是否正确，但是assert语句可以。

仅在希望为发布版本删除检查的情况下使用断言。请记住，如果不在调试模式下编译，断言将不会触发。

对于检查为空的示例，如果这是在仅限内部的API中，我可能会使用断言。如果它在一个公共API中，我肯定会使用显式检查和抛出。

断言用于捕获程序员(您的)错误，而不是用户错误。只有在用户不可能触发断言时才应该使用它们。例如，如果你正在编写一个API，在API用户调用的任何方法中，都不应该使用断言来检查参数是否为空。但是它可以在一个私有方法中使用，而不是作为API的一部分公开，以断言您的代码永远不会在不应该传递null参数时传递null参数。

当我不确定时，我通常更喜欢异常而不是断言。

如果我是你，我会这样做:

Debug.Assert(val != null);
if ( val == null )
    throw new exception();

或者避免重复条件检查

if ( val == null )
{
    Debug.Assert(false,"breakpoint if val== null");
    throw new exception();
}

您应该始终使用第二种方法(抛出异常)。

同样，如果你是在生产环境中(并且有一个发布版本)，抛出一个异常(在最坏的情况下让应用程序崩溃)比处理无效值和可能破坏客户数据(这可能要花费数千美元)要好。

摘自Code Complete (Wikipedia):

8 Defensive Programming 8.2 Assertions An assertion is code that’s used during development—usually a routine or macro—that allows a program to check itself as it runs. When an assertion is true, that means everything is operating as expected. When it’s false, that means it has detected an unexpected error in the code. For example, if the system assumes that a customer-information file will never have more than 50,000 records, the program might contain an assertion that the number of records is lessthan or equal to 50,000. As long as the number of records is less than or equal to 50,000, the assertion will be silent. If it encounters more than 50,000 records, however, it will loudly “assert” that there is an error in the program. Assertions are especially useful in large, complicated programs and in high reliability programs. They enable programmers to more quickly flush out mismatched interface assumptions, errors that creep in when code is modified, and so on. An assertion usually takes two arguments: a boolean expression that describes the assumption that’s supposed to be true and a message to display if it isn’t. (…) Normally, you don’t want users to see assertion messages in production code; assertions are primarily for use during development and maintenance. Assertions are normally compiled into the code at development time and compiled out of the code for production. During development, assertions flush out contradictory assumptions, unexpected conditions, bad values passed to routines, and so on. During production, they are compiled out of the code so that the assertions don’t degrade system performance.

在我的书里几乎从来没有。 在绝大多数情况下，如果你想检查一切是否正常，那么就扔掉。

我不喜欢的是，它使调试构建在功能上与发布构建不同。如果调试断言失败，但功能在发布中工作，那么这有什么意义呢?如果断言者早已离开公司，没有人知道这部分代码，那就更好了。然后你就得花点时间去探索这个问题，看看它是不是真的是个问题。如果这是一个问题，那为什么那个人不第一时间扔呢?

对我来说，这建议使用调试。声称你把问题推给别人，自己解决问题。如果某件事应该是这样，但事实并非如此，那就扔掉。

我猜可能有一些性能关键的场景，你想要优化你的断言，它们在那里很有用，但是我还没有遇到这样的场景。

John Robbins在《调试Microsoft . net 2.0应用程序》一书中有一大节是关于断言的。他的主要观点是:

Assert liberally. You can never have too many assertions. Assertions don't replace exceptions. Exceptions cover the things your code demands; assertions cover the things it assumes. A well-written assertion can tell you not just what happened and where (like an exception), but why. An exception message can often be cryptic, requiring you to work backwards through the code to recreate the context that caused the error. An assertion can preserve the program's state at the time the error occurred. Assertions double as documentation, telling other developers what implied assumptions your code depends on. The dialog that appears when an assertion fails lets you attach a debugger to the process, so you can poke around the stack as if you had put a breakpoint there.

PS:如果你喜欢《代码完成》，我推荐你继续阅读这本书。我买这本书是为了学习如何使用WinDBG和转储文件，但前半部分包含了一些帮助避免bug的技巧。

根据设计标准，你应该

坚持每一个假设。平均每五行就有一个断言。

using System.Diagnostics;

object GetObject()
{...}

object someObject = GetObject();
Debug.Assert(someObject != null);

作为一个免责声明，我应该提到我还没有发现实现这个IRL是实际的。但这是他们的标准。

就其价值而言……我发现我的公共方法倾向于使用if () {throw;}模式，以确保方法被正确调用。我的私有方法倾向于使用Debug.Assert()。

The idea is that with my private methods, I'm the one under control, so if I start calling one of my own private methods with parameters that are incorrect, then I've broken my own assumption somewhere--I should have never gotten into that state. In production, these private asserts should ideally be unnecessary work since I am supposed to be keeping my internal state valid and consistent. Contrast with parameters given to public methods, which could be called by anyone at runtime: I still need to enforce parameter constraints there by throwing exceptions.

此外，如果某些东西在运行时不起作用(网络错误、数据访问错误、从第三方服务检索的坏数据等)，我的私有方法仍然可以抛出异常。我的断言只是为了确保我没有破坏我自己关于对象状态的内部假设。

我想再添加四种情况，其中Debug。断言可以是正确的选择。

1)我在这里没有看到提到的是assert在自动化测试期间可以提供的额外概念覆盖。举个简单的例子:

当作者认为他们已经扩展了代码的范围以处理额外的场景，并修改了一些高级调用者时，理想情况下(!)他们将编写单元测试来覆盖这种新情况。那么，完全集成的代码可能会表现得很好。

然而，实际上已经引入了一个微妙的缺陷，但在测试结果中没有发现。在这种情况下，被调用者变得不确定，只提供预期的结果。或者，它产生了一个未被注意到的舍入误差。或者造成的错误在其他地方被抵消。或者不仅授予所请求的访问权限，还授予不应该授予的其他特权。等。

此时，被调用者中包含的Debug.Assert()语句加上单元测试驱动的新用例(或边缘用例)可以在测试期间提供宝贵的通知，即原始作者的假设已经失效，并且在没有额外审查的情况下不应该发布代码。断言与单元测试是完美的合作伙伴。

2)此外，有些测试写起来很简单，但成本很高，而且在初始假设下是不必要的。例如:

如果一个对象只能从某个安全的入口点访问，是否应该从每个对象方法对网络权限数据库进行额外查询，以确保调用者具有权限?当然不是。也许理想的解决方案包括缓存或其他一些功能扩展，但设计并不需要这样做。当对象被附加到不安全的入口点时，Debug.Assert()将立即显示。

3)其次，在某些情况下，当以发布模式部署时，您的产品可能对其全部或部分操作没有有用的诊断交互。例如:

Suppose it is an embedded real-time device. Throwing exceptions and restarting when it encounters a malformed packet is counter-productive. Instead the device may benefit from best-effort operation, even to the point of rendering noise in its output. It also may not have a human interface, logging device, or even be physically accessible by human at all when deployed in release mode, and awareness of errors is best provided by assessing the same output. In this case, liberal Assertions and thorough pre-release testing are more valuable than exceptions.

4)最后，有些测试是不必要的，只是因为被呼叫方被认为是非常可靠的。在大多数情况下，代码的可重用性越高，在使其可靠方面投入的精力就越多。因此，对于来自调用方的意外参数，通常使用Exception，而对于来自被调用方的意外结果，则使用Assert。例如:

If a core String.Find operation states it will return a -1 when the search criteria is not found, you may be able to safely perform one operation rather than three. However, if it actually returned -2, you may have no reasonable course of action. It would be unhelpful to replace the simpler calculation with one that tests separately for a -1 value, and unreasonable in most release environments to litter your code with tests ensuring core libraries are operating as expected. In this case Asserts are ideal.

所有的断言应该是代码，可以优化为:

Debug.Assert(true);

因为它检验的是你已经假设为真的东西。例如:

public static void ConsumeEnumeration<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
  if(source != null)
    using(var en = source.GetEnumerator())
      RunThroughEnumerator(en);
}
public static T GetFirstAndConsume<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
  if(source == null)
    throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
  using(var en = source.GetEnumerator())
  {
    if(!en.MoveNext())
      throw new InvalidOperationException("Empty sequence");
    T ret = en.Current;
    RunThroughEnumerator(en);
    return ret;
  }
}
private static void RunThroughEnumerator<T>(IEnumerator<T> en)
{
  Debug.Assert(en != null);
  while(en.MoveNext());
}

在上面，有三种不同的空参数方法。第一个接受它为允许的(它只是什么都不做)。第二个则抛出异常供调用代码处理(或不处理，导致错误消息)。第三种假设它不可能发生，并断言它是这样的。

在第一种情况下，没有问题。

在第二种情况下，调用代码有一个问题——它不应该用null调用GetFirstAndConsume，所以它会返回一个异常。

在第三种情况下，这段代码有一个问题，因为在调用它之前，它应该已经检查过en != null，所以它不是真的是一个错误。或者换句话说，它应该是理论上可以优化为Debug.Assert(true)的代码，sicne en != null应该始终为真!

简而言之

断言用于保护和检查契约式设计约束，即确保代码、对象、变量和参数的状态在预期设计的边界和限制内运行。

Asserts should be for Debug and non-Production builds only. Asserts are typically ignored by the compiler in Release builds. Asserts can check for bugs / unexpected conditions which ARE in the control of your system Asserts are NOT a mechanism for first-line validation of user input or business rules Asserts should not be used to detect unexpected environmental conditions (which are outside the control of the code) e.g. out of memory, network failure, database failure, etc. Although rare, these conditions are to be expected (and your app code cannot fix issues like hardware failure or resource exhaustion). Typically, exceptions will be thrown - your application can then either take corrective action (e.g. retry a database or network operation, attempt to free up cached memory), or abort gracefully if the exception cannot be handled. A failed Assertion should be fatal to your system - i.e. unlike an exception, do not try and catch or handle failed Asserts - your code is operating in unexpected territory. Stack Traces and crash dumps can be used to determine what went wrong.

断言有巨大的好处:

帮助查找用户输入的缺失验证，或高级代码中的上游错误。 代码库中的断言清楚地向读者传达了代码中所做的假设 Assert将在调试版本的运行时进行检查。 一旦对代码进行了详尽的测试，将代码重新构建为Release将消除验证假设的性能开销(但好处是，如果需要，后面的Debug构建将始终恢复检查)。

．.． 更详细地

Debug.Assert expresses a condition which has been assumed about state by the remainder of the code block within the control of the program. This can include the state of the provided parameters, state of members of a class instance, or that the return from a method call is in its contracted / designed range. Typically, asserts should crash the thread / process / program with all necessary info (Stack Trace, Crash Dump, etc), as they indicate the presence of a bug or unconsidered condition which has not been designed for (i.e. do not try and catch or handle assertion failures), with one possible exception of when an assertion itself could cause more damage than the bug (e.g. Air Traffic Controllers wouldn't want a YSOD when an aircraft goes submarine, although it is moot whether a debug build should be deployed to production ...)

什么时候应该使用断言?

At any point in a system, or library API, or service where the inputs to a function or state of a class are assumed valid (e.g. when validation has already been done on user input in the presentation tier of a system, the business and data tier classes typically assume that null checks, range checks, string length checks etc on input have been already done). Common Assert checks include where an invalid assumption would result in a null object dereference, a zero divisor, numerical or date arithmetic overflow, and general out of band / not designed for behaviour (e.g. if a 32 bit int was used to model a human's age, it would be prudent to Assert that the age is actually between 0 and 125 or so - values of -100 and 10^10 were not designed for).

.Net代码契约 在. net堆栈中，代码契约可以作为Debug.Assert的补充，也可以作为Debug.Assert的替代。代码契约可以进一步形式化状态检查，并且可以帮助在编译时(或者稍后，如果在IDE中作为背景检查运行)检测违反假设的情况。

契约式设计(DBC)检查包括:

合同。要求-约定的先决条件 合同。保证-合同后置条件 不变量——表示关于对象在其生命周期中所有点的状态的假设。 合同。当调用非契约装饰方法时，假定-安抚静态检查器。

我已经在这里阅读了答案，我认为我应该添加一个重要的区别。使用断言有两种非常不同的方式。一种是作为临时的开发人员快捷方式，表示“这不应该真的发生，所以如果它发生了，就告诉我，这样我就可以决定怎么做”，有点像一个条件断点，用于你的程序能够继续的情况。另一种方法是在代码中假设有效的程序状态。

在第一种情况下，断言甚至不需要出现在最终代码中。您应该使用Debug。在开发期间断言，如果/当不再需要时，您可以删除它们。如果你想要保留它们或者忘记删除它们，没有问题，因为它们在发布汇编中不会有任何后果。

But in the second case, the assertions are part of the code. They, well, assert, that your assumptions are true, and also document them. In that case, you really want to leave them in the code. If the program is in an invalid state it should not be allowed to continue. If you couldn't afford the performance hit you wouldn't be using C#. On one hand it might be useful to be able to attach a debugger if it happens. On the other, you don't want the stack trace popping up on your users and perhaps more important you don't want them to be able to ignore it. Besides, if it's in a service it will always be ignored. Therefore in production the correct behavior would be to throw an Exception, and use the normal exception handling of your program, which might show the user a nice message and log the details.

跟踪。Assert有实现这一点的完美方法。它不会在生产环境中被删除，并且可以使用app.config配置不同的侦听器。 因此，对于开发来说，默认的处理程序就可以了，对于生产来说，您可以创建一个简单的TraceListener(如下所示)，它会抛出一个异常并在生产配置文件中激活它。

using System.Diagnostics;

public class ExceptionTraceListener : DefaultTraceListener
{
    [DebuggerStepThrough]
    public override void Fail(string message, string detailMessage)
    {
        throw new AssertException(message);
    }
}

public class AssertException : Exception
{
    public AssertException(string message) : base(message) { }
}

在产品配置文件中:

<system.diagnostics>
  <trace>
    <listeners>
      <remove name="Default"/>
      <add name="ExceptionListener" type="Namespace.ExceptionTraceListener,AssemblyName"/>
    </listeners>
  </trace>
 </system.diagnostics>

摘自《实用程序员:从熟练工到高手》

Leave Assertions Turned On There is a common misunderstanding about assertions, promulgated by the people who write compilers and language environments. It goes something like this: Assertions add some overhead to code. Because they check for things that should never happen, they'll get triggered only by a bug in the code. Once the code has been tested and shipped, they are no longer needed, and should be turned off to make the code run faster. Assertions are a debugging facility. There are two patently wrong assumptions here. First, they assume that testing finds all the bugs. In reality, for any complex program you are unlikely to test even a miniscule percentage of the permutations your code will be put through (see Ruthless Testing). Second, the optimists are forgetting that your program runs in a dangerous world. During testing, rats probably won't gnaw through a communications cable, someone playing a game won't exhaust memory, and log files won't fill the hard drive. These things might happen when your program runs in a production environment. Your first line of defense is checking for any possible error, and your second is using assertions to try to detect those you've missed. Turning off assertions when you deliver a program to production is like crossing a high wire without a net because you once made it across in practice. There's dramatic value, but it's hard to get life insurance. Even if you do have performance issues, turn off only those assertions that really hit you.