Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: NOHANDLE prevents CICS from automatically invoking HANDLE CONDITION or HANDLE ABEND routines, so the program must check response codes like EIBRESP or RESP itself
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
CICS commands may encounter exceptional conditions such as NOTFND, DUPREC, or LENGERR. Developers can choose how these conditions are handled by using options such as RESP, RESP2, HANDLE CONDITION, HANDLE ABEND, and NOHANDLE. Understanding the effect of NOHANDLE is important for writing robust CICS programs and is a common interview topic for mainframe developers.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
When NOHANDLE is specified on a CICS command, CICS does not automatically transfer control to any HANDLE CONDITION or HANDLE ABEND routine for conditions that arise from that command. Instead, the program must explicitly check the response fields (such as EIBRESP or RESP/RESP2) and handle any error conditions itself. NOHANDLE gives programmers more direct control but requires careful coding to ensure that all relevant conditions are detected and processed appropriately.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Consider a CICS file control command such as EXEC CICS READ FILE(...) INTO(...) END-EXEC that might raise conditions like NOTFND or DUPKEY.
Step 2: Without NOHANDLE, if a HANDLE CONDITION is active for NOTFND, CICS may automatically transfer control to the specified routine when the record is not found.
Step 3: If you add the NOHANDLE option to the command, EXEC CICS READ FILE(...) NOHANDLE, CICS will not invoke any HANDLE CONDITION routines for conditions raised by this particular command.
Step 4: Instead, CICS sets response codes such as EIBRESP or RESP, and it is the responsibility of the application code following the command to examine these codes and decide how to react.
Step 5: This approach allows fine grained control over error handling but requires the programmer to ensure that all important conditions are checked to avoid silent failures.
Verification / Alternative check:
Testing a program with and without NOHANDLE demonstrates the difference. With HANDLE CONDITION active and no NOHANDLE, certain conditions result in control flowing to the handler automatically. When the same command is executed with NOHANDLE, control remains in the main program flow and the handler is bypassed, but EIBRESP or RESP contains a code indicating the condition. Documentation and examples for CICS command options clearly describe NOHANDLE as disabling automatic condition handling for that command.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option B is incorrect because NOHANDLE does not make CICS ignore errors; it only prevents automatic transfers to handlers, and response codes still reflect failures. Option C is wrong because NOHANDLE does not force immediate termination of the task; termination depends on ABEND conditions or explicit program logic. Option D is incorrect because NOHANDLE does not automatically generate system dumps or cancel regions; those behaviours are controlled by other mechanisms such as ABEND codes and dump settings.
Common Pitfalls:
A common pitfall is using NOHANDLE without following it with proper checks of EIBRESP or RESP, which can cause errors to go unnoticed and lead to data inconsistencies or user confusion. Another issue is misunderstanding the interaction between NOHANDLE and global handlers; developers may assume handlers will always fire when in fact NOHANDLE overrides them on specific commands. Correct use of NOHANDLE requires a deliberate decision to manage conditions locally, backed by careful coding and thorough testing.
Final Answer:
When you specify NOHANDLE on a CICS command, CICS does not automatically invoke HANDLE CONDITION or HANDLE ABEND routines for that command, and the program must explicitly check response codes such as EIBRESP or RESP to detect and handle any exceptional conditions.
Discussion & Comments