Unit test exception messages with xUnit

Unit TestingMstestXunit

Unit Testing Problem Overview


I'm currently converting my MsTest unit tests to xUnit. With xUnit, is there a way to test exception messages? Is it correct to test exception messages as opposed just the exception type?

Unit Testing Solutions


Solution 1 - Unit Testing

I think it is correct to test for both Exception type and message. And both are easy in xUnit:

var exception = Assert.Throws<AuthenticationException>(() => DoSomething());
Assert.Equal(message, exception.Message);

Solution 2 - Unit Testing

Better to use the Record.Exception method as it matches the AAA pattern:

    [Fact]
    public void Divide_TwoNumbers_ExpectException()
    {
        var sut = new Calculator();
        var exception = Record.Exception(() => sut.Divide(10, 0));
        Assert.IsType(typeof(DivideByZeroException), exception);
    }

Hope this helps ...

Solution 3 - Unit Testing

Something like this

 var ex = Record.Exception(() => DoSomeThing());
 Assert.IsType(typeof(ArgumentNullException), ex);
 Assert.True(ex.Message.Contains("Your exception message"));
 

Solution 4 - Unit Testing

xUnit uses Assert.Throws to test for exception types. You could catch the exception and Assert against the message if you needed. I think in general you want to test that the expected exception is thrown, and the exact message is really not necessary.

Assert.Throws<ArgumentNullException>()

The exception might be if you have a custom exception you are unit testing and you want to make sure the message generated is what you expect. Or if there are two ways that the same exception type can be thrown but with different messages, then asserting against the message would be valuable

Solution 5 - Unit Testing

BTW, Resharper prefers not to use typeof and suggests Assert.IsType instead, e.g.

var ex = Record.Exception(() => new FooController(null, null));
Assert.IsType<ArgumentNullException>(ex);

Solution 6 - Unit Testing

An exception is no different than any other expected result of your test. It is natural to test that the message is the correct one as two different messages can come in the same exception type. However - I personally don't think of it as mandatory, at least not in all exceptions.

In our project each application exception also has a 'Message' object attached to it, so we verify the MessageId only, we don't verify that the message arguments are correct or the message's text. E.g if the message text is "Wrong parameter <{0}> was provided", we don't check that the argument that was passed to format {0} is as expected - this is not the intent. The message has a unique id - so we verify that the MessageID on the exception is 'WRONG_PARAMETER_PROVIDED'.

Solution 7 - Unit Testing

In the light of async stuff, new version would be

var ex = await Record.ExceptionAsync(() => myMethod(myParams));
Assert.IsType<SomeException>(ex);
Assert.Equal("My text of the error.", ex.Message);

Solution 8 - Unit Testing

xUnit website also mentions "Record.Exception" construct.

Attributions

All content for this solution is sourced from the original question on Stackoverflow.

The content on this page is licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Content TypeOriginal AuthorOriginal Content on Stackoverflow
QuestionsduplooyView Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - Unit Testingthe_joricView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - Unit Testinguser1829319View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - Unit Testinguser2982369View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 4 - Unit TestingNerdFuryView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 5 - Unit TestingAndy CreighView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 6 - Unit TestingRonKView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 7 - Unit TestingNico DegraefView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 8 - Unit TestingCsaba TothView Answer on Stackoverflow