demo(13-throw-bare-exception): 13 — New throw new Exception(...) path with no test coverage

[EricCogen]

13 — New throw new Exception(...) path with no test coverage

Expected verdict: ❌ Fails — GauntletCI should fire GCI0032 (uncaught exception path).

What changed

PricingService gains a new validation helper that throws a bare
System.Exception when an amount is negative:

public Money RequireNonNegative(Money amount)
{
    if (amount.Amount < 0m)
    {
        throw new Exception($"Amount must be non-negative: {amount.Amount}");
    }
    return amount;
}

The diff adds a throw new in production code without adding any
corresponding Assert.Throws<> / Should().Throw<>() test in the
test project.

Why this is risky

• throw new Exception(...) is the wrong base type. Callers cannot
  catch something more specific without also catching every other
  bug. The .NET guidelines explicitly call this out.
• A new exception path with no test is, by definition, a path no one
  has ever executed. The first time it fires will be in production.
• The trivial fix is to (a) throw ArgumentOutOfRangeException
  (which has dedicated handling everywhere in .NET) and (b) add an
  Assert.Throws<ArgumentOutOfRangeException>(...) test.

What GauntletCI catches

GCI0032 Uncaught Exception Path — one or more throw new statements
in non-test files in the diff, with no corresponding throw-assertion
(Assert.Throws, Should().Throw, ThrowsAsync, Throws<…>) in any
test file in the same diff.

[github-actions]

GauntletCI found the following issues:

These findings reference lines outside the PR diff, so they appear here instead of inline. Expand each entry for full evidence, rationale, and suggested action.

GCI0032 — Uncaught Exception Path: 1 'throw new' statement(s) added without Assert.Throws or Should().Throw evidence in this diff.

GCI0032 — Uncaught Exception Path

1 'throw new' statement(s) added without Assert.Throws or Should().Throw evidence in this diff.

Evidence:

1 added 'throw new' statement(s) in non-test files.

⚠️ Why it matters: New exception paths that are untested may crash callers silently in production when the edge case is reached.

💡 Suggested action: Add xUnit Assert.Throws<T> or FluentAssertions .Should().Throw<T>() tests for each new exception path.

_{Confidence: Medium | Severity: Block}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a6af783686

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Throw a specific exception for invalid money amounts

When RequireNonNegative receives a negative value, it throws System.Exception, which makes this validation failure indistinguishable from unexpected faults for callers and tests that handle argument errors by type. For input validation paths like this, use a typed exception (for example ArgumentOutOfRangeException) so downstream code can reliably catch and react to this condition.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[EricCogen]

Reopening with refreshed scenario.