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>

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.

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。

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.

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。

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。