我最终为我们的test-utils库编写了一个方便的方法

/**
 *  Utility method to test for a specific error class and message in Jest
 * @param {fn, expectedErrorClass, expectedErrorMessage }
 * @example   failTest({
      fn: () => {
        return new MyObject({
          param: 'stuff'
        })
      },
      expectedErrorClass: MyError,
      expectedErrorMessage: 'stuff not yet implemented'
    })
 */
  failTest: ({ fn, expectedErrorClass, expectedErrorMessage }) => {
    try {
      fn()
      expect(true).toBeFalsy()
    } catch (err) {
      let isExpectedErr = err instanceof expectedErrorClass
      expect(isExpectedErr).toBeTruthy()
      expect(err.message).toBe(expectedErrorMessage)
    }
  }

Jest有一个方法toThrow(error)，用于测试函数在被调用时是否抛出。

所以，在你的情况下，你应该这样称呼它:

expect(t).toThrowError(TypeError);

文档。

我设法把一些答案结合起来，最后得到了这样的答案:

it('should throw', async () => {
    await expect(service.methodName('some@email.com', 'unknown')).rejects.toThrow(
      HttpException,
    );
  });

开玩笑地说，你必须将一个函数传递给expect(函数)。toThrow(<空白或错误类型>)。

例子:

test("Test description", () => {
  const t = () => {
    throw new TypeError();
  };
  expect(t).toThrow(TypeError);
});

或者如果你还想检查错误信息:

test("Test description", () => {
  const t = () => {
    throw new TypeError("UNKNOWN ERROR");
  };
  expect(t).toThrow(TypeError);
  expect(t).toThrow("UNKNOWN ERROR");
});

如果需要测试现有函数是否抛出一组参数，则必须将其包装在expect()中的匿名函数中。

例子:

test("Test description", () => {
  expect(() => {http.get(yourUrl, yourCallbackFn)}).toThrow(TypeError);
});

一个好方法是创建自定义错误类并模拟它们。然后你可以断言任何你想要的东西。

MessedUpError.ts

type SomeCrazyErrorObject = {
  [key: string]: unknown,
}

class MessedUpError extends Error {
  private customErrorData: SomeCrazyErrorObject = {};

  constructor(err?: string, data?: SomeCrazyErrorObject) {
    super(err || 'You messed up');

    Object.entries(data ?? {}).forEach(([Key, value]) => {
      this.customErrorData[Key] = value;
    });
    Error.captureStackTrace(this, this.constructor);
  }

  logMe() {
    console.log(this.customErrorData);
  }
}

export default MessedUpError;

messedUpError.test.ts

import MessedUpError from './MessedUpError';

jest.mock('./MessedUpError', () => jest.fn().mockImplementation((...args: any[]) => ({
  constructor: args,
  log: () => {},
})));

type MessedUpErrorContructorParams = Expand<typeof MessedUpError['prototype']>
const MessedUpErrorMock = MessedUpError as unknown as jest.Mock<MessedUpError, [MessedUpErrorContructorParams]>;

const serverErrorContructorCall = (i = 0) => ({
  message: MessedUpErrorMock.mock.calls[i][0],
  ...MessedUpErrorMock.mock.calls[i][1] || {},
});

beforeEach(() => {
  MessedUpErrorMock.mockClear();
});

test('Should throw', async () => {
  try {
    await someFunctionThatShouldThrowMessedUpError();
  } catch {} finally {
    expect(MessedUpErrorMock).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
    const constructorParams = serverErrorContructorCall();
    expect(constructorParams).toHaveProperty('message', 'You messed up');
    expect(constructorParams).toHaveProperty('customErrorProperty', 'someValue');
  }
});

断言总是在finally子句中。通过这种方式，它将始终被断言。即使测试没有抛出任何错误。

我自己没有尝试过，但我建议使用Jest的toThrow断言。所以我猜你的例子应该是这样的:

it('should throw Error with message \'UNKNOWN ERROR\' when no parameters were passed', (t) => {
  const error = t.throws(() => {
    throwError();
  }, TypeError);

  expect(t).toThrowError('UNKNOWN ERROR');
  //or
  expect(t).toThrowError(TypeError);
});

同样，我还没有测试它，但我认为它应该可以工作。