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


== Compliant Solution

----
public void Foo(Bar a, Bar 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("My error message", "a");
  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("b");
  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("b", "My error message");
  throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("b", b, "My error message");
}
----


== Exceptions

The rule won't raise an issue if the parameter name is not a constant value (inline declaration, nameof() or const variable).