[fuzzy2]

Doing it like this (or preferably with a custom exception) translates the technical problem into a domain problem. Without doing this, callers can't properly handle it. FormatException or OverflowException could be thrown at multiple locations, not just in parsing the user ID. This here is an InvalidUserIdException. It could be derived from ArgumentException, but IMHO InvalidOperationException is not appropriate.

[reactordev]

Translating into a custom exception is the way to go here. Bubbling up exceptions from your abstractions is fine for development but not a good experience for users of your API.

I would rather see custom exceptions thrown than rethrowing.

[xnorswap]

You're right that domain specific exceptions would be much better.

As an aside, generating domain specific exceptions is precisely the kind of busywork that traditionally it is hard to find motivation to do but that LLMs excel at.

[bonesss]

Re: Domain Specific Exceptions

Code snippets in IDEs like Visual Studio and refactoring tools like Resharper offer shortcut accessible auto generation of those kinds of entities with deterministic results. They also have routines to extract and move entities to their own files afterwards in a keyboard based workflow.

They are far less work than a prompt, faster, can be shared in the project or team, and are guarantee-able to confirm to coding standards, logging specifics and desired inheritance chain for your root domain exception. It works on-prem, offline, for zero tokens.

[fuzzy2]

I mean, at least on modern C#, it could be as simple as

    public class UserIdInvalidException(Exception innerException) : Exception("Invalid User ID", innerException);

Even easier than most data objects you’d have to define anyway. And then, Exceptions are part of the contract. I’d rather not have an LLM write that up, but that’s just personal preference.