== Why is this an issue?

Because parameter names could be changed during refactoring, they should not be spelled out literally in strings. Instead, use ``++nameof()++``, and the string that's output will always be correct.


This rule raises an issue when a string in the ``++throw++`` statement contains the name of one of the method parameters.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
void DoSomething(int someParameter, string anotherParam)
{
    if (someParameter < 0) 
    {
        throw new ArgumentException("Bad argument", "someParameter");  // Noncompliant
    }
    if (anotherParam == null)
    {
        throw new Exception("anotherParam should not be null"); // Noncompliant
    }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,csharp]
----
void DoSomething(int someParameter)
{
    if (someParameter < 0)
    {
        throw new ArgumentException("Bad argument", nameof(someParameter));
    }
    if (anotherParam == null)
    {
        throw new Exception($"{nameof(anotherParam)} should not be null");
    }
}
----


=== Exceptions

* The rule doesn't raise any issue when using C# < 6.0.
* When the parameter name is contained in a sentence inside the ``++throw++`` statement string, the rule will raise an issue only if the parameter name is at least 5 characters long. This is to avoid false positives.


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

include::../message.adoc[]

'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]
endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]