NUnit 的 TestCustomException 不关心异常类型

发布于 2024-09-28 02:11:32 字数 814 浏览 2 评论 0原文

如果我想测试一个方法是否抛出特定类型的异常，NUnit 的 ExpectedException 属性并不关心实际类型；如果我在方法调用之前抛出通用异常，则测试通过：

    [Test, ExpectedException(typeof(TestCustomException))]
    public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
    {
        throw new Exception(); // with this, the test should fail, but it doesn't
        this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException());
    }

如果我想检查测试是否抛出确切的异常类型，我必须手动执行以下操作：

    [Test]
    public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
    {
        try
        {
            throw new Exception();  // now the test fails correctly.
            this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException());
        }
        catch (TestCustomException)
        {
            return;
        }

        Assert.Fail("Exception not thrown.");
    }

我是否遗漏了某些内容？

原文

If I want to test that a method throws an exception of a particular type, NUnit's ExpectedException attribute doesn't care about the actual type; if I throw a generic Exception before the method call, the test passes:

    [Test, ExpectedException(typeof(TestCustomException))]
    public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
    {
        throw new Exception(); // with this, the test should fail, but it doesn't
        this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException());
    }

If I want to check that the test throws the exact exception type, I have to do something manual like this:

    [Test]
    public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
    {
        try
        {
            throw new Exception();  // now the test fails correctly.
            this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException());
        }
        catch (TestCustomException)
        {
            return;
        }

        Assert.Fail("Exception not thrown.");
    }

Am I missing something?

分享到QQ

分享到微博

如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

发布评论

需要登录才能够评论，你可以免费注册一个本站的账号。

故人的歌 2024-10-05 02:11:32

我从未使用过 ExpectedException，所以我对此没有任何经验可分享。一个选项是断言它直接在测试中抛出。像这样的事情：

[Test]
public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
{
    Assert.Throws<TestCustomException>(() => this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException()));
}

我发现这种方法更具可读性，因为您在预期异常发生的地方测试异常，而不是说“在这个函数的某个地方，我除了抛出一个异常”。

I've never used ExpectedException, so I don't have any experience to share on this. An option is to Assert that it Throws directly inside the test. Something like this:

[Test]
public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
{
    Assert.Throws<TestCustomException>(() => this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException()));
}

I find this approach more readable as you test for the exception exactly where you expect it to happen instead of saying "somewhere inside this function I except an exception to be thrown".

回复收藏 0 原文

如梦初醒的夏天 2024-10-05 02:11:32

我总是测试异常的字符串表示形式，例如：

[Test, ExpectedException("Your.Namespace.TestCustomException")]
public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
{
    throw new Exception(); // with this, the test should fail, but it doesn't
    this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException());
}

这似乎对我来说效果很好。

I always test for the string representation of the exception e.g.:

[Test, ExpectedException("Your.Namespace.TestCustomException")]
public void FirstOnEmptyEnumerable()
{
    throw new Exception(); // with this, the test should fail, but it doesn't
    this.emptyEnumerable.First(new TestCustomException());
}

Which seems to work fine for me.

回复收藏 0 原文