Java 8让这变得容易多了，Kotlin/Scala更是如此。

我们可以写一个小工具类

class MyAssertions{
  public static void assertDoesNotThrow(FailingRunnable action){
    try{
      action.run()
    }
    catch(Exception ex){
      throw new Error("expected action not to throw, but it did!", ex)
    }
  }
}

@FunctionalInterface interface FailingRunnable { void run() throws Exception }

然后你的代码就变得很简单:

@Test
public void foo(){
  MyAssertions.assertDoesNotThrow(() -> {
    //execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
  }
}

如果你不能使用java -8，我会使用一种非常古老的java工具:任意的代码块和一个简单的注释

//setup
Component component = new Component();

//act
configure(component);

//assert 
/*assert does not throw*/{
  component.doSomething();
}

最后，用kotlin，一种我最近爱上的语言:

fun (() -> Any?).shouldNotThrow() 
    = try { invoke() } catch (ex : Exception){ throw Error("expected not to throw!", ex) }

@Test fun `when foo happens should not throw`(){

  //...

  { /*code that shouldn't throw*/ }.shouldNotThrow()
}

尽管有很多空间可以随意改变你想要如何表达这一点，但我一直喜欢流畅的断言。

关于

你想错了。只需测试您的功能:如果抛出异常，测试将自动失败。如果没有抛出异常，您的测试将全部显示为绿色。

这在原则上是正确的，但在结论上是不正确的。

Java允许控制流的异常。这是由JRE运行时本身在Double等api中完成的。parseDouble通过NumberFormatException和路径。通过invalidpatheexception获取。

Given you've written a component that validates Number strings for Double.ParseDouble, maybe using a Regex, maybe a hand-written parser, or perhaps something that embeds some other domain rules that restricts the range of a double to something specific, how best to test this component? I think an obvious test would be to assert that, when the resulting string is parsed, no exception is thrown. I would write that test using either the above assertDoesNotThrow or /*comment*/{code} block. Something like

@Test public void given_validator_accepts_string_result_should_be_interpretable_by_doubleParseDouble(){
  //setup
  String input = "12.34E+26" //a string double with domain significance

  //act
  boolean isValid = component.validate(input)

  //assert -- using the library 'assertJ', my personal favourite 
  assertThat(isValid).describedAs(input + " was considered valid by component").isTrue();
  assertDoesNotThrow(() -> Double.parseDouble(input));
}

我还鼓励您使用Theories或Parameterized对输入参数化这个测试，这样您就可以更容易地对其他输入重复使用这个测试。或者，如果您想要与众不同，您可以使用测试生成工具(以及这个工具)。TestNG对参数化测试有更好的支持。

What I find particularly disagreeable is the recommendation of using @Test(expectedException=IllegalArgumentException.class), this exception is dangerously broad. If your code changes such that the component under test's constructor has if(constructorArgument <= 0) throw IllegalArgumentException(), and your test was supplying 0 for that argument because it was convenient --and this is very common, because good generating test data is a surprisingly hard problem--, then your test will be green-bar even though it tests nothing. Such a test is worse than useless.

Java 8让这变得容易多了，Kotlin/Scala更是如此。

我们可以写一个小工具类

class MyAssertions{
  public static void assertDoesNotThrow(FailingRunnable action){
    try{
      action.run()
    }
    catch(Exception ex){
      throw new Error("expected action not to throw, but it did!", ex)
    }
  }
}

@FunctionalInterface interface FailingRunnable { void run() throws Exception }

然后你的代码就变得很简单:

@Test
public void foo(){
  MyAssertions.assertDoesNotThrow(() -> {
    //execute code that you expect not to throw Exceptions.
  }
}

如果你不能使用java -8，我会使用一种非常古老的java工具:任意的代码块和一个简单的注释

//setup
Component component = new Component();

//act
configure(component);

//assert 
/*assert does not throw*/{
  component.doSomething();
}

最后，用kotlin，一种我最近爱上的语言:

fun (() -> Any?).shouldNotThrow() 
    = try { invoke() } catch (ex : Exception){ throw Error("expected not to throw!", ex) }

@Test fun `when foo happens should not throw`(){

  //...

  { /*code that shouldn't throw*/ }.shouldNotThrow()
}

尽管有很多空间可以随意改变你想要如何表达这一点，但我一直喜欢流畅的断言。

关于

你想错了。只需测试您的功能:如果抛出异常，测试将自动失败。如果没有抛出异常，您的测试将全部显示为绿色。

这在原则上是正确的，但在结论上是不正确的。

Java允许控制流的异常。这是由JRE运行时本身在Double等api中完成的。parseDouble通过NumberFormatException和路径。通过invalidpatheexception获取。

Given you've written a component that validates Number strings for Double.ParseDouble, maybe using a Regex, maybe a hand-written parser, or perhaps something that embeds some other domain rules that restricts the range of a double to something specific, how best to test this component? I think an obvious test would be to assert that, when the resulting string is parsed, no exception is thrown. I would write that test using either the above assertDoesNotThrow or /*comment*/{code} block. Something like

@Test public void given_validator_accepts_string_result_should_be_interpretable_by_doubleParseDouble(){
  //setup
  String input = "12.34E+26" //a string double with domain significance

  //act
  boolean isValid = component.validate(input)

  //assert -- using the library 'assertJ', my personal favourite 
  assertThat(isValid).describedAs(input + " was considered valid by component").isTrue();
  assertDoesNotThrow(() -> Double.parseDouble(input));
}

我还鼓励您使用Theories或Parameterized对输入参数化这个测试，这样您就可以更容易地对其他输入重复使用这个测试。或者，如果您想要与众不同，您可以使用测试生成工具(以及这个工具)。TestNG对参数化测试有更好的支持。

What I find particularly disagreeable is the recommendation of using @Test(expectedException=IllegalArgumentException.class), this exception is dangerously broad. If your code changes such that the component under test's constructor has if(constructorArgument <= 0) throw IllegalArgumentException(), and your test was supplying 0 for that argument because it was convenient --and this is very common, because good generating test data is a surprisingly hard problem--, then your test will be green-bar even though it tests nothing. Such a test is worse than useless.

在这个问题上遇到了麻烦，因为我创建了一些泛型方法

@Test
void testSomething() {
   checkGeneric(anComplexObect)
}

在https://newbedev.com/sonarqube-issue-add-at-least-one-assertion-to-this-test-case-for-unit-test-with-assertions中提出了一些注释的东西。

解决方案要简单得多。将“checkGeneric”方法重命名为“assertGeneric”就足够了。

@Test
void testSomething() {
  assertGeneric(anComplexObect)
}

我偶然发现这一点是因为SonarQube的规则“squid:S2699”:“向这个测试用例添加至少一个断言。”

我有一个简单的测试，它的唯一目标是不抛出异常。

考虑这段简单的代码:

public class Printer {

    public static void printLine(final String line) {
        System.out.println(line);
    }
}

可以添加什么样的断言来测试这个方法? 当然，您可以尝试捕获它，但这只是代码膨胀。

解决方案来自JUnit本身。

如果没有抛出异常，并且你想显式地说明这种行为，只需添加预期，如下例所示:

@Test(expected = Test.None.class /* no exception expected */)
public void test_printLine() {
    Printer.printLine("line");
}

Test.None.class是预期值的默认值。

如果您导入org.junit.Test。没有，你可以这样写:

@Test(expected = None.class)

你可能会觉得更有可读性。

如果您想测试您的测试目标是否使用异常。只需要将测试保留为(使用jMock2的模拟合作者):

@Test
public void consumesAndLogsExceptions() throws Exception {

    context.checking(new Expectations() {
        {
            oneOf(collaborator).doSth();
            will(throwException(new NullPointerException()));
        }
    });

    target.doSth();
 }

如果您的目标确实使用抛出的异常，则测试将通过，否则测试将失败。

如果您想测试异常使用逻辑，事情会变得更加复杂。我建议将消费委托给一个可能被嘲笑的合作者。因此，测试可以是:

@Test
public void consumesAndLogsExceptions() throws Exception {
    Exception e = new NullPointerException();
    context.checking(new Expectations() {
        {
            allowing(collaborator).doSth();
            will(throwException(e));

            oneOf(consumer).consume(e);
        }
    });

    target.doSth();
 }

但如果你只是想记录它，有时它就设计过度了。在这种情况下，如果您坚持使用tdd，本文(http://java.dzone.com/articles/monitoring-declarative-transac, http://blog.novoj.net/2008/09/20/testing-aspect-pointcuts-is-there-an-easy-way/)可能会有所帮助。

我遇到了同样的情况，我需要检查异常是否在应该抛出的时候抛出，并且仅在应该抛出的时候抛出。 最终使用异常处理程序对我的好处如下代码:

    try {
        functionThatMightThrowException()
    }catch (Exception e){
        Assert.fail("should not throw exception");
    }
    RestOfAssertions();

对我来说，主要的好处是它非常直截了当，并且在相同的结构中检查“如果且仅当”的另一种方式非常容易