Why is this an issue?

Some constructors of the ArgumentException, ArgumentNullException, ArgumentOutOfRangeException and DuplicateWaitObjectException classes must be fed with a valid parameter name. This rule raises an issue in two cases:

• When this parameter name doesn’t match any existing ones.
• When a call is made to the default (parameterless) constructor

Noncompliant code example

public void Foo(Bar a, int[] b)
{
  throw new ArgumentException();                                        // Noncompliant
  throw new ArgumentException("My error message", "c");                 // Noncompliant
  throw new ArgumentException("My error message", "c", innerException); // Noncompliant

  throw new ArgumentNullException("c");                     // Noncompliant
  throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(c));               // Noncompliant
  throw new ArgumentNullException("My error message", "a"); // Noncompliant

  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("c");                           // Noncompliant
  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("c", "My error message");       // Noncompliant
  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("c", b, "My error message");    // Noncompliant

  throw new DuplicateWaitObjectException("c", "My error message");      // Noncompliant
}

Compliant solution

public void Foo(Bar a, int[] b)
{
  throw new ArgumentException("My error message", "a");
  throw new ArgumentException("My error message", "b", innerException);

  throw new ArgumentNullException("a");
  throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(a));
  throw new ArgumentNullException("a", "My error message");

  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("b");
  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("b", "My error message");
  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("b", b, "My error message");

  throw new DuplicateWaitObjectException("b", "My error message");
}

Exceptions

The rule won’t raise an issue if the parameter name is not a constant value.