http://blog.alecl.com/archive/2008/10/25/syntactic-sugar-for-thrown-exception-checking-with-generics.aspxUsing attributes like [ExpectedException] can obscure intent because they apply to the whole method instead of a specific call you're checking. To make intent totally clear and prevent unexpected bugs, you should wrap just the statement you're expectingenCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)http://blog.alecl.com/archive/2008/10/25/syntactic-sugar-for-thrown-exception-checking-with-generics.aspx#32Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:40:35 GMT022ae8cf-15ca-4180-8062-b150ad1660bf:32mjcarrabine<p>I am new to unit testing (using MSTest). Having quickly discovered the limitations of the ExpectedException attribute, I was searching for better approach, and this is tremendously helpful.</p> <p>One question, how would I modify your helper functions to allow methodcalls that take parameters?</p> <p>I would expect it would use Func&lt;T,TResult&gt; instead of Action, but I am also new to delegates, so I am unsure if this is possible.</p> <p>Thanks again.</p>