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.

使用断言检查开发人员的假设，使用异常检查环境的假设。

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.

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.

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。