DirectoryInfo.GetFileSystemInfos同时返回文件和目录：-

new DirectoryInfo(targetDir).GetFileSystemInfos().ToList().ForEach(x => x.Delete());

或者如果要递归删除：-

        new DirectoryInfo(targetDir).GetFileSystemInfos().ToList().ForEach(x =>
        {
            if (x is DirectoryInfo di)
                di.Delete(true);
            else
                x.Delete();
        });

DirectoryInfo.GetFileSystemInfos同时返回文件和目录：-

new DirectoryInfo(targetDir).GetFileSystemInfos().ToList().ForEach(x => x.Delete());

或者如果要递归删除：-

        new DirectoryInfo(targetDir).GetFileSystemInfos().ToList().ForEach(x =>
        {
            if (x is DirectoryInfo di)
                di.Delete(true);
            else
                x.Delete();
        });

我知道这是一个古老的问题，但这是（也许是新的）正确答案：

new DirectoryInfo(folder).Delete(true);
Directory.CreateDirectory(folder);

删除所有递归，然后重新创建文件夹。

PS-必须具有使用System.IO的引用；

这不是处理上述问题的最佳方法。但这是另一种选择。。。

while (Directory.GetDirectories(dirpath).Length > 0)
 {
       //Delete all files in directory
       while (Directory.GetFiles(Directory.GetDirectories(dirpath)[0]).Length > 0)
       {
            File.Delete(Directory.GetFiles(dirpath)[0]);
       }
       Directory.Delete(Directory.GetDirectories(dirpath)[0]);
 }

这是我看完所有帖子后使用的工具。确实如此

删除所有可以删除的内容如果某些文件保留在文件夹中，则返回false

它处理的是

只读文件删除延迟锁定的文件

它不使用Directory.Delete，因为该进程因异常而中止。

    /// <summary>
    /// Attempt to empty the folder. Return false if it fails (locked files...).
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="pathName"></param>
    /// <returns>true on success</returns>
    public static bool EmptyFolder(string pathName)
    {
        bool errors = false;
        DirectoryInfo dir = new DirectoryInfo(pathName);

        foreach (FileInfo fi in dir.EnumerateFiles())
        {
            try
            {
                fi.IsReadOnly = false;
                fi.Delete();

                //Wait for the item to disapear (avoid 'dir not empty' error).
                while (fi.Exists)
                {
                    System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10);
                    fi.Refresh();
                }
            }
            catch (IOException e)
            {
                Debug.WriteLine(e.Message);
                errors = true;
            }
        }

        foreach (DirectoryInfo di in dir.EnumerateDirectories())
        {
            try
            {
                EmptyFolder(di.FullName);
                di.Delete();

                //Wait for the item to disapear (avoid 'dir not empty' error).
                while (di.Exists)
                {
                    System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10);
                    di.Refresh();
                }
            }
            catch (IOException e)
            {
                Debug.WriteLine(e.Message);
                errors = true;
            }
        }

        return !errors;
    }

我们也可以表现出对LINQ的热爱：

using System.IO;
using System.Linq;
…
var directory = Directory.GetParent(TestContext.TestDir);

directory.EnumerateFiles()
    .ToList().ForEach(f => f.Delete());

directory.EnumerateDirectories()
    .ToList().ForEach(d => d.Delete(true));

请注意，我这里的解决方案不是高性能的，因为我使用的是Get*（）.ToList（）.ForEach（…），它两次生成相同的IEnumerable。我使用扩展方法来避免此问题：

using System.IO;
using System.Linq;
…
var directory = Directory.GetParent(TestContext.TestDir);

directory.EnumerateFiles()
    .ForEachInEnumerable(f => f.Delete());

directory.EnumerateDirectories()
    .ForEachInEnumerable(d => d.Delete(true));

这是扩展方法：

/// <summary>
/// Extensions for <see cref="System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable"/>.
/// </summary>
public static class IEnumerableOfTExtensions
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Performs the <see cref="System.Action"/>
    /// on each item in the enumerable object.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="TEnumerable">The type of the enumerable.</typeparam>
    /// <param name="enumerable">The enumerable.</param>
    /// <param name="action">The action.</param>
    /// <remarks>
    /// “I am philosophically opposed to providing such a method, for two reasons.
    /// …The first reason is that doing so violates the functional programming principles
    /// that all the other sequence operators are based upon. Clearly the sole purpose of a call
    /// to this method is to cause side effects.”
    /// —Eric Lippert, “foreach” vs “ForEach” [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/05/18/foreach-vs-foreach.aspx]
    /// </remarks>
    public static void ForEachInEnumerable<TEnumerable>(this IEnumerable<TEnumerable> enumerable, Action<TEnumerable> action)
    {
        foreach (var item in enumerable)
        {
            action(item);
        }
    }
}