Having two ``++WHEN++`` in a ``++CASE++`` statement or two branches in an ``++IF++`` chain  with the same implementation is at best duplicate code, and at worst a coding error. If the same logic is truly needed for both cases, they should be combined. 

== Noncompliant Code Example

----
CASE i.
  WHEN 1.
    doFirst.
    doSomething.
  WHEN 2.
    doSomethingDifferent.
  WHEN 3.  // Noncompliant; duplicates case 1's implementation
    doFirst.
    doSomething. 
  WHEN OTHERS. 
    doTheRest.
ENDCASE.

IF a >= 0 AND a < 10.
  doFirst.
  doTheThing.
ELSEIF a >= 10 AND a < 20.
  doTheOtherThing.
ELSEIF a >= 20 AND a < 50.
  doFirst.       // Noncompliant; duplicates first condition
  doTheThing.
ENDIF.
----

== Exceptions

Blocks in an ``++IF++`` chain or in ``++CASE++`` statement that contain a single line of code are ignored.


----
IF a >= 0 AND a < 10.
  doTheThing.
ELSEIF a >= 10 AND a < 20.
  doTheOtherThing.
ELSEIF a >= 20 AND a < 50.
  doTheThing.  // no issue, usually this is done on purpose to increase the readability
ENDIF.
----

But this exception does not apply to ``++IF++`` chains without final ``++ELSE++``-s, or to ``++CASE++``-s without ``++WHEN OTHERS++`` clauses when all branches have the same single line of code. In case of ``++IF++`` chains with ``++ELSE++``-s, or of ``++CASE++``-s with ``++WHEN OTHERS++`` clauses, rule S3923 raises a bug. 

----
if a >= 0 AND a < 10. //Noncompliant, this might have been done on purpose but probably not
  doTheThing.
elseif a >= 10 AND a < 20.
  doTheThing.
endif.
----

ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]
'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

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