== Why is this an issue?

After calling CICS commands with the ``++RESP++`` or ``++NOHANDLE++`` options, the return code should be tested.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,cobol]
----
  EXEC CICS DELETEQ TS        *> Noncompliant; WS-STATUS should have been tested before the MOVE
    QNAME(WS-TS5FTARF-NAME)
    RESP(WS-STATUS)        
  END-EXEC.                   
  MOVE WS-EIBTASKN (4:4) TO WS-TS5FTAR1-NAME-TSKID.
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,cobol]
----
  EXEC CICS DELETEQ TS
    QNAME(WS-TS5FTARF-NAME)
    RESP(WS-STATUS)        
  END-EXEC.                   
  IF WS-STATUS ...

  MOVE WS-EIBTASKN (4:4) TO WS-TS5FTAR1-NAME-TSKID.
----


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

=== is related to: S1587

=== on 1 Feb 2016, 11:29:42 Pierre-Yves Nicolas wrote:
\[~freddy.mallet] The title and description of this rule mention ``++NOHANDLE++`` but the current implementation does nothing related to ``++NOHANDLE++`` and it seems that there's nothing to test when ``++NOHANDLE++`` is used according to the https://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGMCP_5.1.0/com.ibm.cics.ts.applicationprogramming.doc/topics/dfhp4_nohandleintro.html[documentation].

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