16f6c0aecf
Inline adoc files when they are included exactly once. Also fix language tags because this inlining gives us better information on what language the code is written in.
43 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
43 lines
1.2 KiB
Plaintext
== 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[]
|